Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Supreme Court of North Carolina also declined to extend Nixon's assumed common-law access discussion to state courts. The other citing opinions applied Nixon's access and sealing principles, rejected an invitation to overrule it, reported Nixon's treatment of other authorities, or directed nearby adverse language at unrelated cases and rulings. Duplicate clusters for the original and amended In re Roman Catholic Archbishop opinion were read separately; the statutory treatment below is anchored on the live amended opinion.
4,538 later cases cite Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.; 84 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by Statute
-
Congress's enactment of 11 U.S.C. § 107 displaced Nixon's discretionary common-law access regime for papers filed in bankruptcy proceedings.
In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon · Ninth Circuit · filed
Because § 107 speaks directly to and conflicts with significant aspects of the common law right of access, we join our sister circuits in holding that § 107 preempts the common law right of access in bankruptcy proceedings. ... Therefore, we conclude that the bankruptcy court correctly held that § 107 supplanted the common law right of access in bankruptcy proceedings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Supreme Court of North Carolina declined to extend Nixon's discussion of a common-law access right to state-court proceedings and records, reasoning that Nixon merely assumed the right for uniquely federal presidential tapes.
Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp. · Supreme Court of North Carolina · filed
Further, the Supreme Court did not purport in Nixon to apply the common law of any state or federal common law. Instead, in an opinion for a very divided Court, Justice Powell sought, in a discussion which was obiter dictum in that case, to “distill from the relatively few judicial decisions a comprehensive definition of what is referred to as the common law right of access.” ... We do not believe that Nixon is controlling authority for the proposition that federal or state common law provides the public a right of access to state courts or their records.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace