Stilp v. Contino’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(k) Confidentiality. — As a general rule, no person shall disclose or acknowledge to any other person any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which is before the commission. However, a person may disclose or acknowledge to another person matters held confidential in accordance with this subsection when the matters pertain to any of the following: (1) final orders of the commission as provided in subsection (h); (2) hearings conducted in public pursuant to subsection (g); (3) for the purpose of seeking advice of legal counsel; (4) filing an appeal from a commission order; (5) communicating with the commission or its staff, in the course of a preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration by the commission; (6) consulting with a law enforcement official or agency for the purpose of initiating, participating in or responding to an investigation or prosecution by the law enforcement official or agency; (7) testifying under oath before a governmental body or a similar body of the United States of America; (8) any information, records or proceedings relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which the person is the subject of; or (9) such other exceptions as the commission by regulation may direct. 3”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 743 F. Supp. 2d 460 - Stilp v. Contino

2. “[t]he harm caused by disclosing the fact that an Ethics Act complaint was filed, regardless of whether the complaint was frivolous or meritorious, is too negligible and remote to justify a blanket prohibition on such disclosure. To the extent the state has a compelling interest in preventing harm caused by frivolous or wrongful filings, Section 1108(k) is not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Filing and publicizing frivolous or false ethics complaints are independently proscribed by the Ethics Act, which subjects the filer to civil and criminal sanctions under Sections 1109(e) and 1110 as well as common law tort liability for defamation to the extent cognizable under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Those sanctions render Section 1108(k)’s prohibition cumulative and unnecessary. We hold that Section 1108(k), as construed by defendants to prohibit public disclosure of the fact that an Ethics Act complaint was filed, does not survive strict scrutiny and cannot be enforced. A blanket prohibition on disclosure of a filed complaint stifles political speech near the core of the First Amendment and impairs the public’s ability to evaluate whether the Ethics Commission is properly fulfilling its statutory mission to investigate alleged violations of the Ethics Act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 743 F. Supp. 2d 460 - Stilp v. Contino

3. “prevent[ing] the Commission's credibility from being invoked to support 'scandalous charges,' " and "prevent[ing] candidates and their supporters from being 'unduly tarred by a vindictive complaint.' " Id. at 1117-18 . We wrote in Lind , "Because these concerns ... stem from the direct communicative impact of speech, we conclude that [the Hawai'i statute] regulates speech on the basis of its content.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tschida v. Motl