Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Carlson v. Pima County, 687 P.2d 1242.

102 citing documents.

Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lake contends that the "technical analysis” of Mathews has been replaced by subsequent appellate decisions, , and Church of Scientology v. City of Phoenix Police Dep’t
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Even if portions of a document merit confidentiality, “a practical alternative to the complete denial of access would be deleting specific personal identifying information, such as names.” , see also Doe v. Bellmore-Merrick Cent.
Griffis v. Pinal County 156 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2007
Griffis v. Pinal County 156 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2007
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶ 12 , an inmate filed a defamation action against Pima County and its sheriff, among others, based on the release of an “offense report” under the Public Records Law.
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
London v. Broderick 80 P.3d 769 Ariz. 2003
London v. Broderick 80 P.3d 769 Ariz. 2003
See, (noting that “an unlimited right of inspection might lead to substantial and irreparable private or public harm,” which must be weighed against “the general policy of open access” to determine whether disclosure is proper); -81, (1
A.H. Belo Corp. v. Mesa Police Department 42 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
A.H. Belo Corp. v. Mesa Police Department 42 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Such access is not unqualified, however, for “an unlimited right of inspection might lead to substantial and irreparable private or public harm.”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan 35 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan 35 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera 27 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera 27 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Moreover, the public right of inspection may also be curtailed in the interest of “confidentiality, privacy or the best interests of the state.”
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
§§ 39-121 through 39-121.03
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In addition to certain statutory exceptions, [t]his public right of inspection may also be curtailed in the interest of “confidentiality, privacy, or the best interests of the state.” Carlson [v. Pima County, , ].
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 955 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1998
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 955 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1998
The trial court conducted a balancing test, , weighing the teachers’ confidentiality and privacy rights against defendants’ public purpose.
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 of Maricopa County v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 937 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 of Maricopa County v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 937 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
*503 I. The Presumption of Disclosure The Public Records Law “evince[s] a clear policy favoring disclosure.”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell 927 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell 927 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
While it is well settled that Arizona evinces a general “open access” policy toward public records, , see also A.R.S.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 924 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 924 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 895 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 895 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Star Publishing Co. v. Pima County Attorney's Office 891 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Star Publishing Co. v. Pima County Attorney's Office 891 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Cox Arizona Publications
Star Publishing Co. v. Parks 875 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Star Publishing Co. v. Parks 875 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
legislative proceedings.”), , (no absolute immunity “for public officers and employees of the state and its political subdivisions.”).
Cox Arizona Publications v. Collins 852 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1993
Cox Arizona Publications v. Collins 852 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1993
1981); , and that no statutory exception to disclosure applies here.
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Rogers 815 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1991
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Rogers 815 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1991
See, , -17 , -65 (Ct.App.1981); Church of Scientology v. Phoenix Police Dep’t, , (Ct.App.
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 806 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1991
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 806 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1991
Chamberlain v. Mathis 729 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1986
Chamberlain v. Mathis 729 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1986
The more obvious of such immunities are legislative immunity, judicial immunity, and high-level executive immunity.”) , (“There is no absolute privilege in Arizona for public officers and employees of the state and its political subdivisions.”).
Berry v. State, Dept. of Corrections 699 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Berry v. State, Dept. of Corrections 699 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985