Florence Morning News v. Building Commission of City and County of Florence, 20102
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | BRAILSFORD; MOSS |
| Citation | 265 S.C. 389,218 S.E.2d 881 |
| Parties | FLORENCE MORNING NEWS, INC., and Richard G. Moisio, Appellants, v. BUILDING COMMISSION OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF FLORENCE et al., Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 20102,20102 |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1975 |
Page 881
v.
BUILDING COMMISSION OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF FLORENCE et
al., Respondents.
Page 882
[265 S.C. 390] E. N. Zeigler, Florence, for appellants.
[265 S.C. 392] Peter D. Hyman, Florence, for respondent County Council of Florence County, and others.
Finley B. Clarke, Florence, for respondent Building Commission of the City and County of Florence.
D. Laurence McIntosh, Florence, for respondent City of Florence.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Donald V. Myers, and Staff Atty. Edward E. Poliakoff, Columbia, for respondents.
[265 S.C. 393] BRAILSFORD, Acting Associate Justice.
Pursuant to Act No. 818 of 1966, the Building Commission of the City and County of Florence has constructed, and now maintains and operates, a multi-purpose building housing, among other things, court and jail facilities of the City and County. The operation of the building by the Commission and its use by the City and County are also provided for by a contract between these three entities.
The genesis of this controversy was a resolution adopted by the Commission on November 14, 1974, prohibiting inspection of the jail book or log by anyone not 'involved in the actual booking procedure.' When reporters for the Florence Morning News were denied access to the book, this action was promptly commenced by the newspaper and by its general manager, as plaintiffs.
The complaint purports to state three causes of action. The first, alleging that the closing of the jail book impedes the business of the newspaper and 'constitutes a denial of freedom of the press under the Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1 and the Constitution of South Carolina, Article 1, Section 2,' seeks injunctive relief under the Freedom of Information Act of 1972. (Article 2.2, Code of 1962, Supplement)
[265 S.C. 394] The second cause of action, alleging that the Commission has unlawfully excluded employees of the newspaper from its meetings and denied them access to its minutes and records, seeks injunctive relief against these violations of the Freedom of Information Act.
The third cause of action, alleging that the Commission has assumed custody of the jail and its prisoners without statutory authority or under an unconstitutional statute, thus usurping the statutory duties of the County Sheriff and of City Council, seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the sheriff and council to perform their statutory duties by taking custody of the jail and of the county and city prisoners respectively.
As to the first cause of action, the answer of the Commission admits having closed the jail book to the public, including the press, but denies that this is in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
Page 883
As to the second cause of action, the Commission denies having excluded plaintiff's representatives from its meetings or denied them access to its minutes, except for the minutes of the meeting of November 14, 1974, and alleges this was done only after plaintiffs had declared their intention to challenge by this litigation the action taken at that meeting.
As to the third cause of action, the Commission alleges that it is authorized by the statute creating it and by the contract between the City, County and Commission to operate and maintain the joint jail facilities.
The remaining defendants filed answers of similar import.
After hearing the testimony, the circuit judge filed an order in which he found that the jail book is a public record within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act and that closing it against inspection by plaintiff's representatives and others was a violation of the Act.
However, instead of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sloan v. Greenville County, 3704.
...29, 416 S.E.2d 641, 645 (1992); Blandon v. Coleman, 285 S.C. 472, 475, 330 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1985); Florence Morning News v. Bldg. Comm'n, 265 S.C. 389, 398, 218 S.E.2d 881, 884-85 (1975); Carolina Alliance for Fair Employment v. South Carolina Dep't of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 337 S.......
-
CAFE v. SC DEPT. OF LABOR, LICENSING, 3061.
...330 S.E.2d 298 (1985) and Myers v. Patterson, 315 S.C. 248, 433 S.E.2d 841 (1993)). See also Florence Morning News v. Building Comm'n, 265 S.C. 389, 218 S.E.2d 881 (1975). Such imminent prejudice must be of a personal nature to the party laying claim to standing and not merely of general in......
-
Burton v. York County Sheriff's Dept., 3771.
...from holding future secret meetings in violation of FOIA); Florence Morning News, Inc. v. Building Comm'n of City and County of Florence, 265 S.C. 389, 218 S.E.2d 881 (1975) (upholding trial court's injunction prohibiting defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right to inspect and......
-
Burton v. York County Sheriff's Department, Opinion No. 3771 (S.C. App. 4/5/2004), Opinion No. 3771.
...from holding future secret meetings in violation of FOIA); Florence Morning News, Inc. v. Building Comm'n of City and County of Florence, 265 S.C. 389, 218 S.E.2d 881 (1975) (upholding trial court's injunction prohibiting defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right to inspect and......