SWANICK
v.
LORISH
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.
A trial court must conduct a proper constitutional inquiry before imposing a blanket prohibition on disseminating contents of a probate case.
[1] Before imposing a restriction on the dissemination of court records or case contents, a trial court must conduct a proper constitutional inquiry to ensure the restriction…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCindy Swanick, as personal representative of her mother's estate, was the subject of a motion to strike filed by her former attorney Lorenzo Ramunno i…
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.
PER CURIAM.
*1209Cindy Swanick, individually and as personal representative for Gwendolyn Harvey-Hamp, appeals an order granting a motion to strike filed by Lorenzo Ramunno, Esq., Swanick's former attorney, in Swanick's mother's probate case. We reverse the portion of the order that prohibits Swanick or her agents from disseminating, publishing or communicating, in any form whatsoever, contents of the probate case and all related matters because the trial court failed to conduct a proper constitutional inquiry. See Fox v. Hamptons at Metrowest Condo. Ass'n, 223 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). The order is affirmed in all other respects.1
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
ORFINGER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Our opinion does not affect the temporary injunction in place in Marion County case number 42-2017-CA-418.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- FOX v. Hamptons at Metrowest Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 223 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- State v. M.C., 223 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)