Martin v. Principi

Veterans Claims

Martin v. Principi

3 Vet. App. 510, 1992 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 382, 1992 WL 365817

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

DecidedDecember 1, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1449

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Vet. App. 510 (Martin v. Principi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 1992 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 382, 1992 WL 365817 (Cal. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed a motion to seal records in this case on November 9, 1992. In Stam v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 317, 320 (1991), this Court found that an appellant has the burden of showing “good cause” in order “to overcome the presumption of public access to the records.” “It is the duty of the Court to weigh and balance the various factors involved here and arrive at a resolution of the matter that, in each case, adequately addresses the needs of the parties involved — that best balances the competing interests.” Pritchett v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 116, 120 (1992). Appellant’s unsupported conjecture that he may be placed in danger if the public is given access to the records of this appeal is insufficient to meet his burden. See Stam; Pritchett.

However, appellant may renew his motion to seal records if he is able to show “good cause” for denying public access to his records. See Pritchett.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the order which issued in this case on November 23,1992, is vacated. It is further

ORDERED that appellant’s motion to seal records is denied without prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed a motion to seal records in this case on November 9, 1992. In Stam v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 317, 320 (1991), this Court found that an appellant has the burden of showing “good cause” in order “to overcome the presumption of public access to the records.” “It is the duty of the Court to weigh and balance the various factors involved here and arrive at a resolution of the matter that, in each case, adequately addresses the needs of the parties involved — that best balances the competing interests.” Pritchett v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 116, 120 (1992). Appellant’s unsupported conjecture that he may be placed in danger if the public is given access to the records of this appeal is insufficient to meet his burden. See Stam; Pritchett.

However, appellant may renew his motion to seal records if he is able to show “good cause” for denying public access to his records. See Pritchett.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the order which issued in this case on November 23,1992, is vacated. It is further

ORDERED that appellant’s motion to seal records is denied without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Vet. App. 510, 1992 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 382, 1992 WL 365817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-principi-cavc-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack