MIRIAM DONNER AND ARTHUR J. MORBURGER, APPELLANTS,
v.
STEVE EDELSTEIN, ASSISTANT CITY OF MIAMI ATTORNEY, MICHAEL J. MURPHY, ESQUIRE, FOWLER, WHITE, BURNETT, HURLEY, BANICK & STRICKROOT, P.A., AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Records Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Our opinion and mandate in this case, see Donner v. Edelstein, 415 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), instructed the trial court that a determination that public records were exempt from disclosure could only be made by reference to specific records, none of which were before the trial court.
Pursuant to our mandate, the trial court conducted a hearing and by order entered September 17, 1982, ruled that Section 90.502, Florida Statutes (1981) (effective July 1, 1979), exempted from disclosure under the Public Records Act, §§ 119.01-12, Fla.Stat. (1981), records reflecting lawyer-client communications without any reference to specific records in the hands of appellees. Indeed, the trial court’s order concludes with the words, “This order applies only to those matters that are subject to the attorney-client privilege,” and again leaves to appellees the right to unilaterally determine what documents are or are not covered by the privilege.
The trial court’s order does not comply with our mandate requiring reference to specific records. Therefore, upon Appellants’ Motion For Order In Accordance With Mandate, the trial court is directed to examine in camera the documents or copies thereof which are being withheld from disclosure under the privilege asserted, determine which are within the privilege, and to retain copies of all records examined as a sealed exhibit, so that either of the parties may thereafter seek appropriate review of the trial court’s rulings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Tribune Co. v. In re Public Records, 493 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…serted. An inspection lends credence to the decision of the trial court to release or not, and provides a much better basis for appellate review. State ex rel. Times Pub. Co. v. Patterson, 451 So. 2d 888, 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Donner v. Edelstein, 423 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). An in camera inspection also helps dispel any cloud of public suspicion that might otherwise be suspended over governmental efforts to sustain secrecy sua sponte. See Lorei, 464 So. 2d at 1331-32. In consonance with the pri…
-
State v. Kropff, 445 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ttorneys (either in house or private counsel). The trial court’s order does not satisfy the procedural requirements established by this court in Donner v. Edelstein, 415 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA), motion for order in accordance with mandate granted, 423 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. City of North Miami, 420 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We therefore vacate the order below and remand with directions to examine in camera the documents which are being withheld from disclosure…
-
Donner v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 580 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…d DCA 1979); Donner v. Hetherington, 370 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . See Edelstein v. Donner, 450 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), approved, 471 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1985); Donner v. Edelstein, 425 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Donner v. Edelstein, 423 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Donner v. Edelstein, 415 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). .Our affirmance should not be read to bar Ms. Donner from seeking to amend her complaint pending in the circuit court or from asking the trial court to impose sanctions aga…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Donner v. Ebelstein, 415 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)