TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
TOM POGUE, 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.
The Tallahassee Democrat sought certiorari to quash a trial court order requiring it to produce federal income tax returns and profit and loss statements for use in a case where punitive damages were at issue. The court held that while evidence of financial worth is admissible in punitive damages cases, tax returns and profit and loss statements do not necessarily reflect true financial worth and therefore need not be produced; authenticated financial statements are the proper vehicle for demonstrating financial worth.
The court quashed the order requiring production of federal income tax returns and profit and loss statements, holding that while evidence of financial worth is admissible in punitive damages cases, such tax documents do not necessarily portray true financial worth; only properly authenticated financial statements are appropriate for demonstrating financial worth. The petition for certiorari challenging the denial of summary judgment was denied because certiorari does not lie to review such denials.
[1] A court may permit the introduction of evidence of a defendant's financial worth in cases where punitive damages are allowable.
[2] Income tax returns and profit and loss statements are not necessarily synonymous with or a true portrayal of a party's financial worth.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Financial worth is not synonymous to income tax returns or profit and loss statements. The purpose of punitive damages is for punishment or example as deterrent to others inclined to commit similar wrongs.”
Establishes the distinction between financial worth and tax documents, and the purpose of punitive damages evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court ordered the Tallahassee Democrat to produce its 1971 and 1972 federal income tax returns and most recent profit and loss statement for…
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 Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter appears before us in a petition for a writ of certiorari asking this Court to review and quash an Order of the Circuit Court, Leon County, Florida, entered on June 4, 1973, wherein the trial court ordered the petitioner to produce for use by the respondent of petitioner’s 1971 and 1972 federal income tax returns and its most recent profit and loss statement; and to review and quash the order of the same court entered on the same date denying summary judgment.
Briefs have been filed and oral arguments have been heard.
We will dispose of the questions in the order as presented in petitioner’s brief; that is, the question of the order requiring the petitioner to produce its federal income tax returns for the years 1971 and 1972, and its most recent profit and loss statement will be determined by us first.
We think the law is well-settled in this case by the case of Spencer Ladd’s, Inc. v. Lehman et al., as found in 167 So. 2d 731, from this Court, and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Florida in 182 So.2d 402, wherein the rule was laid down that evidence is permissible to allow the introduction of evidence of “financial worth” of the defendant, in cases where punitive damages are allowable. Financial worth is not synonymous to income tax returns or profit and loss statements. The purpose of punitive damages is for punishment or example as deterrent to others inclined to commit similar wrongs. The purpose of the rule of evidence is to indicate to the jury what amount, if any, a verdict would be proper to assess for punishment and at the same time not render the defendant bankrupt. The income tax return and profit and loss statements would not necessarily portray a true picture of financial worth. A financial statement properly authenticated would be proper for the purpose of financial worth.
Therefore, the order requiring the petitioner to so produce is hereby quashed and set aside.
The second question involved the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.
Under the holding in Pullman Company v. Fleishel, 101 So.2d 188 (Fla. App. 1st, 1958), a writ of certiorari will not lie to review the denial of a summary judgment. Therefore, the petition for cer-tiorari as to this point is denied.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
SPECTOR, J., specially concurs.
(specially concurring) :
I agree with the majority’s determination that income figures and tax returns bear no relevance to the issue of punitive damages and therefore the order requiring production thereof should be quashed.
*514With respect to the remaining issue, however, I think it important to observe that the court’s refusal to review petitioner’s claim that the publication is not actionable should in no way be taken to mean that the claim is without merit.
Rather, our denial of certiorari on that issue means only that we are precluded by the Rules of Civil Procedure, as construed in the Pullman case, supra, from considering whether it is actionable for a newspaper to publish materials on what its reporters perceive to be a “bait and switch” operation in the mail order photographic portrait business in a -pretrial summary proceeding.
SPECTOR, Judge
(specially concurring) :
I agree with the majority’s determination that income figures and tax returns bear no relevance to the issue of punitive damages and therefore the order requiring production thereof should be quashed. With respect to the remaining issue, however, I think it important to observe that the court’s refusal to review petitioner’s claim that the publication is not actionable should in no way be taken to mean that the claim is without merit.
Rather, our denial of certiorari on that issue means only that we are precluded by the Rules of Civil Procedure, as construed in the Pullman case, supra, from considering whether it is actionable for a newspaper to publish materials on what its reporters perceive to be a “bait and switch” operation in the mail order photographic portrait business in a -pretrial summary proceeding.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1975)…. 757 (1938); Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936); Jones et al. v. Greeley, 25 Fla. 629, 6 So. 448 (1889). Cf. Florida Standard Jury Instruction 6.12, Punitive Damages. See also: Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, 280 So. 2d 512 (Fla.App.1, 1973); Richards Co. v. Harrison, 262 So. 2d 258 (Fla.App.1, 1972); Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So. 2d 291 (Fla.App.3, 1971); Lewis v. Moody, 195 So. 2d 260 (Fla.App.3, 1967); Mendoza v. Farrell, 199 So. 2d 750 (Fla.App.3, 1967); Hutchinson…
-
Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1979)…ALDERMAN, Justice. We have for review the decision of the Second District in Charlton v. Tennant, 365 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), which conflicts with the decision of the First District in Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, 280 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). In these cases, the district courts reached conflicting conclusions as to the extent of “discovery” a plaintiff seeking punitive damages may make concerning the defendants’ financial resources. In Charlton v. Tennant, the Secon…
-
Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs v. Lassitter, 295 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…that net worth is an accounting term capable of specific definition. It affords a theoretical reflection of any defendant’s ability to respond to a judgment. It was our purpose, albeit not a wholly novel one, see Tallahassee Democrat Inc., v. Pogue, 280 So. 2d 512 (1st D.C.A. Fla. 1973), contra. Aaron v. Rinaldi, 296 So. 2d 632 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974), to hold that the establishment of a net worth figure is a minimum requirement under the term “financial resources” to support an award of punitive damages. It give…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Lehman v. Spencer Ladd's, Inc., 182 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1965)
- Spencer Ladd's, Inc. v. Lehman, 167 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)