In re Caswell
| Decision Date | 20 December 1893 |
| Citation | 29 A. 259,18 R.I. 835 |
| Parties | In re CASWELL, Clerk of Court. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Application of William H. Caswell, clerk of the court in Washington county, for advice as to his duty to furnish copies of proceedings in a divorce case.
At the November session of this court in Washington county the petition for divorce of Eva M. Lee v. Thomas Z. Lee was heard and granted. Shortly thereafter, as represented by William H. Caswell, clerk of the court in that county, a reporter for a Woonsocket newspaper requested him to furnish a copy of all the proceedings in said case, "for publication or otherwise;" and he now asks the advice of the court as to his duty in the premises. At common law, every person is entitled to the inspection, either personally or by his agent, of public records (this term including legislative, executive, and judicial records, etc.), provided he has an interest therein which is such as would enable him to maintain or defend an action for which the document or record sought can furnish evidence or necessary information. It is not essential, however, "that the interest be private, capable of sustaining a suit or defense on his own personal behalf, but it will be sufficient that he act in such suit as the representative of the common or public right" 20 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 522, 523, and cases cited. By statutes of the United States (see act of August 12, 1848,9 U. S. Stat c. 166, p. 292), and also of several of the states, the necessity of interest has been done away with, and any person may examine public records, and take memoranda therefrom. In re Chambers, 44 Fed. 786; State v. Rachac, 37 Minn. 372, 35 N. W. 7; Hanson v. Eichstaedt, 69 Wis. 538, 35 N. W. 30; Lum v. McCarty, 39 N. J. Law, 287; Newton v. Fisher, 98 N. C. 20, 3 S. E. 822. As there is no statute in this state, however, regulating this matter, the common-law rule above stated, in so far as it is applicable here, is doubtless in force. Whether or not we should be willing to go to the full extent thereof, we are not now called upon to decide. But it is clearly within the rule to hold that no one has a right to examine or obtain copies of public records from mere curiosity, or for the purpose of creating public scandal. To publish broadcast the painful, and sometimes disgusting, details of a divorce case, not only fails to serve any useful purpose in the community, but, on the other hand, directly tends to the demoralization and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Level 3 Communications v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:07cv589.
...that its records are not `used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal.'" Id. at 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306 (citing In re Caswell, 18 R.I. 835, 836, 29 A. 259 (1893)). In other cases, "courts have refused to permit their files to serve . . . as sources of business information that might ......
-
United States v. Smith
...simply to cater ‘to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure.’ ” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (quoting In re Caswell, 18 R.I. 835, 29 A. 259, 259 (1893)). Just as poignant is the Supreme Court's admonition that judicial documents not be “used to gratify private spite or promo......
-
In re Boston Herald, Inc.
... ... at 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306 (quoting In re ... Page 191 ... Caswell, 18 R.I. 835, 29 A. 259, 259 (R.I. 1893)). The magistrate judge would be well within his discretion to consider this factor as well ... Finally, the invasiveness of the disclosure sought here is further intensified because the information pertains not only to Connolly, but also ... ...
-
U.S. v. Mitchell
...See, e. g., C. v. C., 320 A.2d 717 (Del.1974); Sanford v. Boston Herald Traveler Corp., 318 Mass. 156, 61 N.E.2d 5 (1945); In re Caswell, 18 R.I. 835, 29 A. 259 (1893); H. Cross, supra note 15, at 149-51; 76 C.J.S. Records § 36, at 140 (1952).35 See cases cited note 34 supra. Appellee argue......
-
Nonparty remote electronic access to plea agreements in the Second Circuit.
...(86.) Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 (1978). (87.) See id. at 597-98. (88.) See id. (89.) Id. (90.) Id. (91.) Id. (92.) Id. (quoting In re Caswell, 29 A. 259, 259 (93.) Id. at 598 (internal citations omitted). (94.) 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). (95.) Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo (Amode......