and outrageous so as to state a claim for relief. Duhammel; Cluff; Davis; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, comment h at 77 (1965). It is our opinion that the publication of true facts taken from the public record regarding the litigation history of the immediate family of one who is embroiled in an extremely controversial lawsuit of widespread public interest does not begin to approach the type of extreme and outrageous conduct contemplated by this standard. Were we to hold otherwise, a large number of truthful and factual statements published in the newspapers of this state could give rise to a claim alleging invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cf. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 495, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 1046, 43 L.Ed.2d 328, 349-50 (1975) (<HOLDING>). We have not previously considered the
holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception holding the first and fourteenth amendments command nothing less than that the states may not impose sanctions on the publication of truthful information contained in official court records open to public inspection recognizing that some police records must remain secret and free from public inspection as a matter of public policy holding that the right of access to government information or sources of information within the governments control is not mandated by the first or fourteenth amendments holding that the fifth amendments protection against selfincrimination is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment