OPINION
BURKE, Justice.In this appeal we hold that a public interest litigant is entitled to the full amount of its attorney’s fees. We so hold despite whatever minimal private interest the litigant may have had in the outcome of its suit.
I
Following our decision in Anchorage School District v. Anchorage Daily News, 779 P.2d 1191 (Alaska 1989), the prevailing party, the Anchorage Daily News, moved for its costs and “full reasonable” attorney’s fees, contending that “[t]he Daily News ... qualifiefdj as a public interest litigant.” The school district opposed the motion, arguing that the Daily News was motivated to bring suit by economic self-interest.
The superior court “accepted” the argument that the Daily News was a public interest litigant, but awarded it only part of its attorney’s fees, stating:
The plaintiff is in the business of gathering news. It does so for the entirely proper purpose of publishing that news for profit. This profit takes many forms — from the rates paid by its readership, to its own editorial proclamation as society’s crusading voice, to, it might even be supposed, its aspiration to a Puli-tizer Prize for meritorious service in the cause of the public’s right to know. There is no vice in any of these. Indeed most are praiseworthy. However, they benefit, they profit the Anchorage Daily News.
... The [cjourt concludes that a significant part of the plaintiff’s motivation to bring this action was commercial in nature and personal to itself, but in part accepts plaintiff’s characterization of public interest litigation. For want of a more precise method of measure, the [cjourt considers the motivations equal, and awards plaintiff one half the actual fees of $4,139, or $2069.50, as a prevailing public interest litigant. Applying the partial compensation rule at 40% to the balance of the fees actually incurred produces an additional $827.60, for a total fee award of $2,897.10.
This appeal followed.
II
We reject at the outset any suggestion that a newspaper engaged in litiga*404tion to obtain information for public dissemination is automatically a public interest litigant,1 The facts of the particular litigation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine public interest status. Thus, we examine first the factors critical to this determination in the case at bar.2
In general, a litigant must satisfy the following criteria to be deemed a public interest litigant:
(1) Is the case designed to effectuate strong public policies?
(2) If the plaintiff succeeds will numerous people receive benefits from the lawsuit?
(3) Can only a private party have been expected to bring the suit?
(4) Would the purported public interest litigant have sufficient economic incentive to file suit even if the action involved only narrow issues lacking general importance?
Murphy v. City of Wrangell, 763 P.2d 229, 233 (Alaska 1988). The school district implicitly concedes that the Daily News satisfies the first three criteria, but maintains all four criteria must be met to be a public interest litigant. We held accordingly in Murphy, where the purported public interest litigant satisfied three of the four criteria, but was, nevertheless, denied public interest status for having sufficient personal economic motive to bring suit. Murphy, 763 P.2d at 233; see also Gold Bondholders Protective Council v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 658 P.2d 776, 778 (Alaska 1983) (public interest status denied where court concluded bondholders had substantial private economic motivation to bring suit).
ía our earlier decision, we recognized the important public policy violated by the school district’s refusal to disclose the terms of the settlement agreement:
The people of this state, through their elected representatives, have stated in the clearest of terms that it is more important that they have access to this type of information than that it remain confidential. Thus, we hold that a public agency may not circumvent the statutory disclosure requirements by agreeing to keep the terms of a settlement agreement confidential. Under Alaska law, a confidentiality provision such as the one in the case at bar is unenforceable because it violates the public records disclosure statutes.
Anchorage School District, 779 P.2d at 1193 (emphasis deleted). It is clear, therefore, that the lawsuit filed by the Daily News vindicated an important public right;3 the main reason for the litigation, and its primary accomplishment, was to compel the school district to disclose information required by law to be available to the public. Moreover, whatever private interest the Daily News might have had, economic or otherwise, was comparatively minor. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the Daily News would have brought its suit “if the action [had] involved only narrow issues lacking general importance.” Murphy, 763 P.2d at 233.
Given these circumstances, we conclude that the Daily News is, in this instance, a public interest litigant, and that the superi- or court abused its discretion in awarding it only part of its attorney’s fees. Having qualified as a public interest litigant, the Daily News is entitled to the full amount of its attorney’s fees, to the extent that they are otherwise reasonable.4
*405REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of an amended judgment.
MOORE, J., dissents.. We also expressly reject the trial court's bifurcation of the public interest litigant analysis. We find no justification to create such a dichotomy. A litigant either satifies the requirements for being a public interest litigant, or does not.
. We apply the abuse of discretion standard "in reviewing a trial court's finding that a litigant has a public interest status." Citizens for the Preservation of the Kenai River, Inc. v. Sheffield, 758 P.2d 624, 626 (Alaska 1988); see also Murphy v. City of Wrangell, 763 P.2d 229, 233 (Alaska 1988).
. There is no question that the documents were released solely because of the Daily News’s efforts. Cf. Public Law Education Inst. v. United States, Dep’t of Justice, 744 F.2d 181, 183-84 (D.C.Cir.1984).
. The superior court concluded that some of the fees submitted were unreasonable. On remand, the superior court need only award the Daily *405News full reasonable attorney’s fees. Hunsicker v. Thompson, 717 P.2d 358, 359 (Alaska 1986).