Posted on 05/17/2006 3:35:50 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday nullified a law that made it easy to seal divorce court records.
The justices, without comment, declined to review an appeals court decision of a billionaire's divorce that declared the 2004 law "unconstitutional on its face."
The Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times and the California Newspaper Publishers Association urged the court to let the January appeals ruling stand.
The case was brought by supermarket magnate Ronald Burkle, who had filed under seal 28 documents about personal income, expenses, and the post-marital agreement with his former wife, Janet.
The law, which critics said was written by lawmakers to help Burkle, a major campaign contributor, required a judge to seal any court record providing information about the financial assets and liabilities of those getting divorced.
Sensitive information is often blacked out of court records, but the law in question allowed the entire document to be sealed.
Lawmakers have been mulling a less restrictive law.
The case is Marriage of Burkle, S141394.
Does the divorce settlement specify which one gets to keep Bill and Hillary or whether they are divided between the two parties?
Could read "Does the divorce settlement specify which unfortunate soul must keep Bill and Hillary..."
Shouldn't it be "Divorce of Burkle"?
Will Burkle now start pumping yet more money into Sacramento for Burkle's Law II?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.