R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HOWARD A. ENGLE, M.D., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a gag order restraining parties and counsel from making public statements during a tobacco class action trial, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate error and that the order did not violate First Amendment rights.
A gag order restraining parties and counsel from making public statements during a class action jury trial does not violate the First Amendment when entered with specific findings of necessity and good cause to assure a fair trial.
[1] Limitations imposed by a court on public statements by parties, counsel, and media are permissible when good cause is shown to assure a fair trial and do not violate the…
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 intelligenceDefendants in a class action lawsuit against tobacco companies sought to terminate a gag order entered in October 1998 that restrained parties and cou…
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 Gag Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal an order denying their motion for termination of an order restraining parties and counsel from making public statements during the pendency of the class action jury trial against various tobacco companies. After a careful review of the record and consideration of the issues raised in the briefs, we hold that defendants have not demonstrated error. We therefore affirm. Defendants’ reliance on Rodriguez v. Weinstein, 734 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), is misplaced. The original order is supported by the record evidence and contains a specific finding regarding the necessity for its entry; thus, this case is clearly distinguishable from Rodriguez.
Furthermore, the order that defendants now seek to terminate, entered in October 1998, was not appealed, and, in fact, was either invited or acquiesced to by defendants.
Finally, the record does not reflect a change in circumstances to justify granting defendants’ motion. See U.S. Mfg. & Galvanizing Corp. v. Renfrow, 592 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the order under review does not violate defendants’ First Amendment rights. As recognized by Rodriguez, limitations imposed by the court between the media and lawyers and/or litigants are permissible for good cause shown in order to assure a fair trial. Rodriguez, 734 So. 2d at 1164.
Accordingly, we affirm the order.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jamil J. Agemy v. Health Bus. Solutions, LLC, 117 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…DCA 2008); Spaulding, 666 So. 2d at 937. Where the enjoined party stipulates to the temporary injunction, the trial court is typically found not to have abused its discretion in denying a motion to dissolve. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 750 So. 2d 781, 781-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (affirming denial of motion to dissolve where the motion “was either invited [*900] or acquiesced to by defendants”); U.S. Mfg. & Galvanizing Corp. v. Renfrew, 592 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (declining to enterta…
-
Dalia Dippolito v. State, 225 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…how cause directed at defense counsel for making prejudicial extrajudicial comments. As a result, evidentiary support existed for the trial court’s order, and good cause for the trial court’s order was shown. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 750 So. 2d 781, 781-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (distinguishing Rodriguez and finding good cause for gag order based on the “record evidence” and the court’s “specific finding” that such an order was necessary). b. The Defendant’s Second Argument On the defendant’s se…
-
DOW Jones & Co., Inc. v. Kaye, 256 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2001)…phase of Engle ended and during the compensatory damages phase, some of the tobacco companies moved to vacate the gag order. Judge Kaye denied the motion, and the state appellate court sustained the gag order. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 750 So. 2d 781, 781 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.2000). The state appellate court also denied media-entity Dow Jones’s motion to intervene in the appeal; Dow Jones participated as amicus curiae in the state appeal. In March 2000, Dow Jones and several other media entities (col…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isabella Rodriguez v. Richard J. Feinstein, M.D. & Richard J. Feinstein, M.D., P.A., 734 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- U.S. Mfg. & Galvanizing Corp. v. Renfrow, 592 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)