Evidentiary Privilege

46 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Jordan v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  591 F.2d 753· D.C. Cir.· 1978-10-31 ·cited 135×
  The court held that the settled standards guiding the United States Attorney's discretion should be available to the public.
• Garland v. Torre
  259 F.2d 545· 2d Cir.· 1958-09-30 ·cited 72×
  The court held that a journalist has no constitutional right to refuse to disclose a confidential news source when the information sought is relevant and material to a legal claim, and that no evidentiary privilege protects such sources in the absence of a statute.
• Cervantes v. Time, Inc.
  464 F.2d 986· 8th Cir.· 1972-07-20 ·cited 58×
  A libel plaintiff must demonstrate actual malice with convincing clarity, and mere speculation about the fruits of source disclosure is insufficient to overcome summary judgment.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  563 F.2d 577· 3d Cir.· 1977-09-07 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the lower court's orders, finding appellate jurisdiction and rejecting the speech and debate clause protection against criminal prosecution for state legislators.
• In re Grand Jury Impaneled January 21 v. Cortese
  541 F.2d 373· 3d Cir.· 1976-08-10 ·cited 51×
  Retainer agreements filed under a local court rule, even if deemed privileged by state law, are not privileged against a federal grand jury subpoena under federal common law when balancing state interests against the need for evidence in federal investigations.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Seine & Line Fishermen's Union OF SAN Pedro
  374 F.2d 974· 9th Cir.· 1967-01-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that while the trial examiner committed procedural errors, they were not sufficiently grave to deny enforcement of the National Labor Relations Board's orders, as the respondents failed to demonstrate prejudice.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Heath TEC Division/SAN Francisco
  566 F.2d 1367· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-05 ·cited 44×
• J. H. Rutter REX Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  473 F.2d 223· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-16 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the Board's refusal to produce its internal investigatory files was justified by a qualified privilege, and that the company was not denied a fair hearing. However, the Board's refusal to allow a witness to refresh his memory from his own notes was an error.
• Mitchell v. Bass
  252 F.2d 513· 8th Cir.· 1958-02-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor waived the informer's privilege by disclosing the names of employees, and that the defendants showed good cause for discovery of their statements, thus the dismissal was proper.
• United States v. Hornick
  815 F.2d 1156· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-14 ·cited 30×
  Technical defects in a warrant do not require suppression of evidence, and statements made at a drug treatment center are admissible for sentencing purposes. Credit for pre-sentence time is determined by the Attorney General, not the sentencing court.
• Kerr v. United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  511 F.2d 192· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to vacate the district court's discovery order should be denied because the petitioners failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or usurpation of power sufficient to warrant such extraordinary relief.
• The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Aristides Morejon
  561 So. 2d 577· Fla.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that journalists do not have a qualified First Amendment privilege to refuse to testify about eyewitness observations of relevant events in criminal proceedings, even when those observations were made during newsgathering assignments. The court dist
• State v. Famiglietti
  817 So. 2d 901· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-05-08 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that a criminal defendant cannot access a crime victim's privileged psychiatric records, even upon showing they contain material information necessary to the defense. The court rejected both statutory and constitutional bases for in
• Dorsey v. Parke
  872 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 22×
  The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not guarantee a defendant the right to cross-examine into a relevant subject already broached solely to expose witness demeanor, nor does it mandate the admission of evidence routinely excluded by evidentiary rules, even if exc
• Farnsworth Cannon, Inc. v. Alton B. Grimes
  635 F.2d 268· 4th Cir.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 20×
• In re Nat'l Mortg. Equity Corp. Mortg. Pool Certificates Litig. v. Feldman
  821 F.2d 1422· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 14×
  The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order compelling discovery was not a final judgment and the documents had already been produced, rendering effective relief impossible.
• Isa Black v. State
  920 So. 2d 668· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-01-06 ·cited 13×
  Isa Black appeals his conviction for robbery and aggravated assault, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from his former attorney regarding a recorded jail telephone conversation. The court affirmed, holding that the communication was not con
• In re Witness Before the Grand Jury. United States v. Witness Before the Grand Jury
  791 F.2d 234· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the confidential communications marital privilege does not apply to communications made after a permanent separation, and that the adverse testimony privilege does not apply to a moribund marriage.
• Usery v. Local Union 720, Laborers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO
  547 F.2d 525· 10th Cir.· 1977-01-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor possesses a qualified privilege not to reveal the identities of informants in an enforcement action under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).
• Heekin v. DEL COL
  60 So. 3d 437· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-03-16 ·cited 10×
  Robert Heekin sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring disclosure of his personal financial information. The court denied the petition, holding that financial information is relevant and discoverable when a party is under a court order to pay money, claims inabilit
• Francois Guerrier v. State
  811 So. 2d 852· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-03-28 ·cited 10×
  Francois Guerrier appeals his aggravated stalking conviction, challenging the trial court's admission of testimony from his treating psychiatrist and the psychiatrist's nurse regarding threats he made to kill his victim. The court affirms, holding that Florida's dangerous patient
• Blake v. State
  332 So. 2d 676· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-05-14 ·cited 10×
  Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for drug possession and sale, holding that a defendant's unsolicited letter to the State's Attorney requesting leniency was properly admitted as a party admission and for impeachment despite not being a formal plea discussion.
• United States v. Gillock
  587 F.2d 284· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 8×
  A federally indicted state senator is entitled to a common law speech or debate privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, protecting legislative acts and motivations from being questioned in a federal prosecution.
• In re Wellins v. Wellins
  627 F.2d 969· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a promise of confidentiality made by government agents did not preclude the appellant from being compelled to testify before a Grand Jury after being granted use immunity.
• Trejo-Perez v. Arry's Roofing/Builders Ins. Grp.
  141 So. 3d 220· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-06-03 ·cited 5×
  The Judge of Compensation Claims permissibly rejected unrebutted medical testimony recommending a Spanish-speaking psychologist where the substance of the testimony, as the fact-finder could reasonably interpret it, failed to establish medical necessity under the statutory standa
• Drukker Commc'ns, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  700 F.2d 727· D.C. Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the NLRB erred in quashing a subpoena for a Board employee's testimony, as the testimony was crucial to determining the validity of a union certification and the alleged privilege did not apply. The court also found insufficient evidence to hold the parent com
• Breed v. United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  542 F.2d 1114· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition should be denied because the claim of privilege was not sufficiently specific and extraordinary relief was not warranted.
• In re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States
  918 F.2d 374· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-29 ·cited 3×
  A federal common law clergy-communicant privilege exists and protects confidential communications made to a clergyperson in their spiritual or professional capacity, even in group settings if the third party's presence is essential to the communication.
• The United States Dep't OF Energy v. Honorable Thomas R. Brett
  659 F.2d 154· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-09-01 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the deliberative process privilege can be asserted by agency officials other than the agency head, and DOE's submissions met the requirements for asserting this privilege.
• Ulrich v. Coast Dental Servs., Inc.
  739 So. 2d 142· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-07-16 ·cited 2×
  A professional journalist's qualified privilege under section 90.5015, Florida Statutes, is not waived by pre-publication disclosure of information.
• United States v. Harris Methodist Fort Worth
  970 F.2d 94· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Title VI applies to physician staff privileges at hospitals receiving federal funds, but the proposed HHS compliance review was an unreasonable search due to its overly broad scope and arbitrary selection process.
• United States v. Cartledge
  928 F.2d 93· 4th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 2×
  A federal court is not bound by a state statute that creates an evidentiary privilege when enforcing federal criminal statutes; federal law and a balancing of interests control.
• In re Grand Jury Matter
  764 F.2d 983· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 2×
  A First Amendment privilege does not protect a grand jury investigation target from complying with a valid subpoena duces tecum; the Fifth Amendment privilege is sufficient.
• Everington v. Riesen
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-11
  The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendant's tax documents and documents from a prior sealed case, and granted Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiffs' damages calculation and document designations, while denying other requests.
• Regions Bank v. Allen
  33 So. 3d 72· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-03-12
  Regions Bank sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling production of documents related to suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed under federal law. The court granted the writ, holding that while supporting documentation underlying a SAR is discoverable, the tri
• Woodard v. Jupiter Christian Sch.
  972 So. 2d 170· Fla.· 2007-12-06
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Ill. Dep't OF Emp. Sec.
  995 F.2d 106· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-26
  A state statute creating a privilege for unemployment compensation hearing transcripts does not prevent a federal agency from obtaining such transcripts via subpoena when federal law governs.
• Maliha Khairzdah v. Sultan Khairzdah and Simeen Khairzdah
  464 So. 2d 1311· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-03-13
  The trial court erred in denying the wife's motion for a protective order based on the psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida Statutes section 90.503, and the order is quashed and remanded.
• Blankenship v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  428 F.2d 1006· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-26
  The court held that a statement contained within an Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) accident report is inadmissible as evidence in a lawsuit arising from the accident, even if the statement itself would otherwise be admissible.