Providence Journal Co. v. F.B.I., s. 79-1056
Citation | 595 F.2d 889,182 U.S.App.D.C. 220 |
Decision Date | 20 February 1979 |
Docket Number | Nos. 79-1056,79-1067,s. 79-1056 |
Parties | 4 Media L. Rep. 2343 PROVIDENCE JOURNAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant, Appellee, v. Raymond L. S. PATRIARCA, Intervenor, Appellee. Appeal of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. PROVIDENCE JOURNAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al., Defendants, Appellees. Appeal of Raymond L. S. PATRIARCA, Intervenor. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
Leonard Schaitman and Michael Jay Singer, Attys. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on motion for stay pending appeal for Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
William M. Kunstler, New York City, and Harris L. Berson, Providence, R. I., on motion for stay pending appeal for Raymond L. S. Patriarca.
Matthew F. Medeiros, Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., and Edwards & Angell, Providence, R. I., on memorandum in opposition to the motions for stay for Providence Journal Co.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge.
Defendants, Federal Bureau of Investigation and others, and Intervenor, Raymond L. S. Patriarca, have requested stays pending their appeals of the district court's order that certain FBI documents be forthwith disclosed to the plaintiff, Providence Journal Company. These documents reflect the results of an unauthorized and illegal wiretap which the FBI maintained at Patriarca's place of business in 1962-65. Defendants and the Intervenor appeal from the district court's ruling that, with certain exceptions, all this material be made available to the Journal.
The district court, while issuing a stay of several days in order to permit this court to orient itself and, if so inclined, grant a further stay, declined to do more. The court pointed out that, in effect, it had analyzed the case fully, that its order reflected its considered judgment, and that it would be "expecting too much to have it critically determine, as would be done through the mind of a stranger," whether appellants had made a strong showing of likely success on appeal. In view of the decision it had reached in the case, the district court thought that more than a brief stay would be a "prior restraint" on the Journal's publication rights as it had found them to be.
This court necessarily approaches the matter from a different perspective. While we give weight to the views of the district court, the Constitution and laws entitle litigants to have their cases independently reviewed by an appellate tribunal. Meaningful review entails having the reviewing court take a fresh look at the decision of the trial court before it becomes irrevocable. Appellants'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Patriarca v. FBI
...than a brief time because a longer stay would be a "prior restraint" upon the Journal's publication rights. Providence Journal Co. v. F.B.I., 595 F.2d 889, 890 (1st Cir.1979). The Court of Appeals granted the stay on February 20, 1979, and stated at page Appellants are not, of course, entit......
-
Isla Petroleum Corp. v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs
...impaired by this Court's order. This is not aa case where the "status quo could never be restored." Providence Journal v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 595 F.2d 889, 890 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071, 100 S.Ct. 1015, 62 L.Ed.2d 752 (1980). Our judgment of June 4, 1986 has ......
-
Aarp v. E.E.O.C.
...to appellee, appellants need not show an absolute probability of success in order to be entitled to a stay." Providence Journal Co. v. FBI, 595 F.2d 889, 889 (1st Cir.1979). Thus, I will stay the portion of my Order vacating the injunction so as to maintain the status quo pending AND NOW, t......
-
Trump v. Vance
...68 (D. Me. 1993) (disclosure of plaintiff's business records to competitor by a former employee); Providence Journal Co. v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 595 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1979) (disclosure of FBI documents to plaintiff); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, No. 94 Civ. 6838, 1996 WL 3965 (N.D. I......