such motions only within four months after a case is resolved. The Times, which was first to file an appeal, did so in March 2002, more than a year after plaintiffs in the 23 lawsuits against the diocese had withdrawn their complaints and settled out of court.

In June 2002, when Judge McWeeny granted emergency motions by all the newspapers involved, he argued that despite the four-month rule, the court still maintained jurisdiction over the files, if not the parties, involved in the case. He also criticized the church's efforts to keep the substance of the resolved court cases secret.

''The judicial system should not be a party to a cover-up by denying access'' to a matter of such widespread public interest, Judge McWeeny wrote at the time. He tookissue, too, with the Appellate Court's decision to keep the court files sealed while it reviewed his decision to open them. As the appeals panel noted in its decision today, Judge McWeeny warned against the ''facilitation of a cover-up by the courts.''

Ralph G. Elliot, a lawyer for The Courant, said he was troubled by the precedent that he said the new ruling established today.

''What the court decided is that, in effect, if you don't know about the problem within four months of the end of the case and don't seek to open up the case again within four months of the end of the case, you're in trouble,'' he said. ''It has terrible ramifications.''