rejecting argument that Aqualified candidates for university administrative positions would be discouraged from applying for a position if they thought their names might be disclosed@ and stating, AWhile this factor might persuade the legislature to create an Open Records Act exception for such applicants, it is not evidence of a >clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy= under . . . the Open Records Act.@
How later courts described this case
- rejecting argument that Aqualified candidates for university administrative positions would be discouraged from applying for a position if they thought their names might be disclosed@ and stating, AWhile this factor might persuade the legislature to create an Open Records Act exception for such applicants, it is not evidence of a >clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy= under . . . the Open Records Act.@
- rejecting argument that "qualified candidates for university administrative positions would be discouraged from applying for a position if they thought their names might be disclosed" and stating, "While this factor might persuade the legislature to create an Open Records Act exception for such applicants, it is not evidence of a 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy' under . . . the Open Records Act."
- noting that judgment was rendered after a bench trial, and that “fact questions as to the effect of disclosure [are assumed to have been] resolved by the district court against appellants”
- distinguishing the “intimate or embarrassing information” in Industrial Foundation from the material 5 sought in Hubert (names of candidates for Texas A&M University president)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by Texas Department of Public Safety v. Cox Texas Newspapers, LP and Hearst Newspapers, LLC (2009)
This Court's holding in Hubert calls into question prior open records decisions by the attorney general that construed
The opinion
PHILLIPS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur with Judge Shannon’s holding that the names involved should be disclosed under the Open Records Act and his refusal to use a balancing test in this case. However, I would be careful to point out that we are not limited to a common law tort recognized by judicial decision only but that § 3(a)2, includes any of the invasions of privacy set out in 3(a)l, i.e., “information deemed confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory or by judicial decision.” Tex.Rev.Civil Stat.Ann. art. 6252-17a (Supp.1982).