# Hubert v. Harte-Hanks Texas Newspapers, Inc.

> Court of Appeals of Texas · May 11, 1983 · 652 S.W.2d 546

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680411

## Case

- **Full name:** Dr. Frank W.R. HUBERT, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chancellor of the Texas a & M University System, Et Al., Appellants, v. HARTE-HANKS TEXAS NEWSPAPERS, INC., D/B/A Bryan-College Station Eagle, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 11, 1983
- **Citations:** 652 S.W.2d 546; 12 Educ. L. Rep. 159; 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 4412
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Phillips
- **Judges:** Phillips, Shannon, Powers
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Texas Department of Public Safety v. Cox Texas Newspapers, LP and Hearst Newspapers, LLC (2009).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680411

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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 …
- 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”

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680411. Public record. Not legal advice.