{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Privacy on thin ice? Considering the California Court of Appeal decision in Johnson v. Superior Court.
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.