BREVARD COUNTY, PETITIONER,
v.
DOROTHY NASH, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
All state, county, and municipal records are controlled by the Public Records Act, and no exception exists for lawyer-client communications.
Petitioner sought to quash a discovery order, arguing the discovery was protected by lawyer-client privilege. Respondent contended the Public Records …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Records Act cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This matter is before us as a petition for writ of certiorari. Petitioner seeks to have us quash a discovery order on the basis that the discovery sought is protected by the lawyer-client privilege. § 90.502, Fla. Stat. (1983). Respondent says that privilege does not exist for an agency, such as the county here, and that the Public Records Act, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes is controlling.
We agree with the rationale and holding of the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami Herald Publishing Compa ny v. City of North Miami, 452 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) and hold that all state, county and municipal records are controlled by the Public Records Act and no exception exists for lawyer-client communications. See also Edelstein v. Donner, 450 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Kropff 445 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
We are advised that the question decided by this opinion is pending in our Supreme Court. The question is of great public importance and we so certify.
Petition denied.
SHARP, J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Orlando v. Desjardins, 469 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…previously considered and rejected the arguments raised by the City here. See Orange County v. Florida Land Company, 450 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 458 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1984) as to the work product argument and Brevard County v. Nash, 468 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) as to the attorney-client privilege. See City of North Miami v. Miami Herald Publishing Company, 468 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1985), not final as of the date of this opinion, wherein the supreme court holds that the attorney/client privil…
-
City OF Melbourne v. A.T.S. Melbourne, Inc., 475 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…client privilege between an attorney and a public entity in light of the statutory requirement that public records be open. §§ 119.01-119.12, Fla.Stat.; see also City of North Miami v. Miami Herald, 468 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1985); Brevard County v. Nash, 468 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Miami Herald v. City of North Miami, 452 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Neu v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 462 So. 2d 821 (Fla.1985); Edelstein v. Donner, 450 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Effective October 1, 1984, however, t…
Authorities Cited
- The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. City OF N. Miami, 452 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- State v. Kropff, 445 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Edelstein v. Donner, 450 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)