Shiner v. Department of Transportation

Florida Circuit Courts

Shiner v. Department of Transportation

3 Fla. Supp. 2d 18

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1983

DocketNo. 83-345

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Fla. Supp. 2d 18 (Shiner v. Department of Transportation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shiner v. Department of Transportation, 3 Fla. Supp. 2d 18 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS D. OAKLEY, Circuit Judge

This cause came on for hearing on the Motion of Florida Publishing Company to Quash the Witness Subpoena Duces Tecum addressed to its Vice President and General Manager to produce “any and all photograph negatives” of an automobile collision, and it appearing to the Court that under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution a newsman may not be required to give information with respect to the gathering of news or with respect to news sources and this, of course, includes photographs taken in connection with the gathering of news, unless there are compelling reasons. See the following: Harris v. Blackstone [19]*19Developers, (1974), 41 Fla. Supp. 176; Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. at 681, 92 S.Ct. at 2656, 33 L.Ed.2d at 639; Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, Case No. 79-243, (1980) 448 U.S. 555; Schulthise v. Weyer Bros., (CC Duval County 6/29/80) 6 M.L.R. 1661, 50 Fla. Supp. 21; Loadholtz v. Fields, (M.D. Fla. 1975) 389 Fed. Supp. 1299; and Gadsden County Times v. Horne, (2/10/83) 426 So.2d 1234, 9 M.L.R. 1290. It is, therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Subpoena Duces Tecum be and the same is hereby quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THOMAS D. OAKLEY, Circuit Judge

This cause came on for hearing on the Motion of Florida Publishing Company to Quash the Witness Subpoena Duces Tecum addressed to its Vice President and General Manager to produce “any and all photograph negatives” of an automobile collision, and it appearing to the Court that under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution a newsman may not be required to give information with respect to the gathering of news or with respect to news sources and this, of course, includes photographs taken in connection with the gathering of news, unless there are compelling reasons. See the following: Harris v. Blackstone [19]*19Developers, (1974), 41 Fla. Supp. 176; Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. at 681, 92 S.Ct. at 2656, 33 L.Ed.2d at 639; Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, Case No. 79-243, (1980) 448 U.S. 555; Schulthise v. Weyer Bros., (CC Duval County 6/29/80) 6 M.L.R. 1661, 50 Fla. Supp. 21; Loadholtz v. Fields, (M.D. Fla. 1975) 389 Fed. Supp. 1299; and Gadsden County Times v. Horne, (2/10/83) 426 So.2d 1234, 9 M.L.R. 1290. It is, therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Subpoena Duces Tecum be and the same is hereby quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Fla. Supp. 2d 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shiner-v-department-of-transportation-flacirct-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack