Per Curiam.
Clark now asserts that the court of appeals erred in conducting its in camera review. We hold that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in how it conducted an in camera inspection of disputed public records. We therefore affirm.
In his first proposition of law, Clark argues that the lower court erred when it failed to individually describe each document and specify why each particular document was exempt. We reject...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
