Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 587 So. 2d 526 - Doe v. State

587 So. 2d 526 - Doe v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2002
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn · 520 So. 2d 250 - State v. Pettis · 488 So. 2d 62 - Williams v. State · 413 So. 2d 872 - Carnavil v. Pines of Delray Ass'n · 503 So. 2d 323 - In re Certificate of Judicial Manpower

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “1. IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CHARGING A DEFENDANT WITH PROSTITUTION, DOES A NON-PARTY WHO CLAIMS A RIGHT OF PRIVACY IN DOCUMENTS HELD BY THE STATE ATTORNEY AS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION HAVE STANDING TO SEEK AN ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH WOULD DENY THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS ACCESS TO EVIDENCE REVEALING NAMES OF THE DEFENDANT'S CLIENTS WHEN PURSUANT TO THE DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY MOTION THE STATE IS PREPARED TO DELIVER SAID EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENDANTS AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.220 AND WHICH UPON DELIVERY WOULD OTHERWISE RENDER THEM `PUBLIC RECORDS' PURSUANT TO BLUDWORTH V. PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., 476 So.2d 775 (FLA. 4TH DCA 1985), REV. DENIED, 488 So.2d 67 (FLA. 1986)? 2. IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CHARGING A DEFENDANT WITH PROSTITUTION, DOES THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 119.011(3)(c)5 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT IN DENYING CLOSURE OF DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS WHERE AN UNNAMED THIRD PARTY CLAIMS THAT RELEASE OF SUCH INFORMATION WOULD BE DEFAMATORY TO HIM AND WOULD INVADE HIS RIGHT OF PRIVACY BOTH UNDER THE ACT, ARTICLE I, SECTION 23 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND THE TRIAL COURT FINDS THAT RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION WILL HARM THE THIRD PARTY?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “be defamatory to the good name of a victim or witness or would jeopardize the safety of such victim or witness.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.