325 So. 2d 40 - Morgan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... As we read Branzburg , as have other courts construing it, there is to some degree a recognizable limited or conditional First Amendment privilege to confidentiality of news sources which, nonetheless, must yield when outweighed by a more compelling public interest. Branzburg , as here, was concerned with a grand jury setting, and it was determined there that a valid inquiry into criminal activity was of sufficient compelling nature as to override whatever conditional privilege was vested in the press. Additionally, it has been suggested that Branzburg may also require that a determination be made that society's interest is `immediate, substantial, and subordinating'; that there be a `substantial connection' between the information desired of the witness and the interest of society in the subject matter of the investigation; `and that the means of obtaining the information is not more drastic than necessary to forward the asserted governmental interest.' ..." (Footnotes omitted; emphasis supplied) Morgan v. State, 325 So.2d 40, 43 , (Fla.2d DCA 1975).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morgan v. State · 328 So. 2d 40 - In Re Tierney

2. “The only `crime' set forth in Ch. 905, supra, relates to revealing the testimony of a witness before the grand jury, and there is no contention made here that such was the nature of the leak under investigation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morgan v. State