Privacy on thin ice? Considering the California Court of Appeal decision in Johnson v. Superior Court.

Jurimetrics Pub Date : 2001-01-01
J A Plosker
{"title":"Privacy on thin ice? Considering the California Court of Appeal decision in Johnson v. Superior Court.","authors":"J A Plosker","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In Johnson v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal determined that a provision of a contract limiting the discovery of the identity of a sperm donor was against public policy and that the privacy interest did not protect against disclosure of this information. Although the court's analysis of the public policy exception to the enforcement of contracts was unnecessary, the opinion properly balances California's and petitioners' interests against an anonymous donor's privacy right.</p>","PeriodicalId":81748,"journal":{"name":"Jurimetrics","volume":"42 1","pages":"73-83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurimetrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Johnson v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal determined that a provision of a contract limiting the discovery of the identity of a sperm donor was against public policy and that the privacy interest did not protect against disclosure of this information. Although the court's analysis of the public policy exception to the enforcement of contracts was unnecessary, the opinion properly balances California's and petitioners' interests against an anonymous donor's privacy right.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
隐私如履薄冰?考虑到加州上诉法院在约翰逊诉高等法院案中的判决。
在Johnson v. Superior Court一案中,加州上诉法院裁定,合同中限制发现捐精子者身份的条款违反了公共政策,隐私利益不能防止这一信息的披露。虽然法院对合同执行的公共政策例外的分析是不必要的,但该意见恰当地平衡了加州和请愿人的利益与匿名捐赠者的隐私权之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
GRANULAR PATIENT CONTROL OF PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION: FEDERAL AND STATE LAW CONSIDERATIONS. THE CRIMINAL PSYCHOPATH: HISTORY, NEUROSCIENCE, TREATMENT, AND ECONOMICS. Curing the unique health identifier: a reconciliation of new technology and privacy rights. Governing population genomics: law, bioethics, and biopolitics in three case studies. The coming pharmacogenomics revolution: tailoring drugs to fit patients' genetic profiles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1