720 So. 2d 220 - State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(2) PRIVILEGE.—A professional journalist has a qualified privilege not to be a witness concerning, and not to disclose the information, including the identity of any source, that the professional journalist has obtained while actively gathering news. This privilege applies only to information or eyewitness observations obtained within the normal scope of employment and does not apply to physical evidence, eyewitness observations, or visual or audio recording of crimes. A party seeking to overcome this privilege must make a clear and specific showing that: (a) The information is relevant and material to unresolved issues that have been raised in the proceeding for which the information is sought; (b) The information cannot be obtained from alternative sources; and (c) A compelling interest exists for requiring disclosure of the information. (3) DISCLOSURE.—A court shall order disclosure pursuant to subsection (2) only of that portion of the information for which the showing under subsection (2) has been made and shall support such order with clear and specific findings made after a hearing. (4) WAIVER.—A professional journalist does not waive the privilege by publishing or broadcasting information.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 741 So. 2d 572 - News-Journal Corp. v. Carson · 739 So. 2d 142 - Ulrich v. Coast Dental Services, Inc.

2. “DOES FLORIDA LAW PROVIDE A QUALIFIED REPORTER'S PRIVILEGE AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE OF NONCONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 720 So. 2d 230 - Morris Communications Corp. v. Frangie · 730 So. 2d 670 - Kidwell v. State

3. “Through this opinion, we clarify the limitations of the qualified reporter's privilege in Florida. First, we hold that a qualified reporter's privilege exists in Florida and that such a privilege extends to both confidential and nonconfidential information gathered in the course of a reporter's employment. Second, we hold, consistent with our opinions in [ Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. ] Morejon [ 561 So.2d 577 (Fla.1990)] and [ CBS, Inc. v. ] Jackson [ 578 So.2d 698 (Fla.1991) ], that the privilege does not apply to eyewitness observations or physical evidence, including recordings, of a crime. Third, we hold that, once the privilege attaches, a court must apply the three-prong balancing test used by an overwhelming majority of other states to determine whether the privilege will act to prevent the disclosure of the reporter's information; that is, the court must determine whether the movant has established that: (1) the reporter possesses relevant information; (2) the same information is not available from alternative sources; and (3) the movant has a compelling need for any information the reporter may have.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 720 So. 2d 230 - Morris Communications Corp. v. Frangie