Tribune Review Pub. Co. v. Thomas
Citation | 120 F. Supp. 362 |
Decision Date | 12 March 1954 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 12033. |
Parties | TRIBUNE REVIEW PUB. CO. et al. v. THOMAS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Fred B. Trescher, Greensburg, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Charles E. Kenworthey, Pittsburgh, Pa., for intervening plaintiff.
H. Reginald Belden and Paul K. McCormick, Greensburg, Pa., for defendants.
In this proceeding the plaintiffs and intervening plaintiff are newspaper publishers and the defendant is the sheriff of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
The matter comes before the court on a complaint in equity to restrain and enjoin the enforcement of a regulation or order issued by the Court of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Westmoreland County is one of sixty-seven counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Said order as issued by the Court of Common Pleas, Court of Quarter Sessions, and Court of Oyer and Terminer of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, provides:
"No one shall take any pictures inside of the courthouse during any session of the court, or the recesses between sessions, and no person, litigant, prosecutor, defendant, plaintiff, claimant or respondent, juror, or witness shall be photographed or have his or her or their pictures taken in a court room or in any of the halls, corridors or approaches thereto during any session of the court or recesses between sessions, and no prisoner, or inmate of the county jail shall be photographed in the jail or in any of the approaches thereto or on his way to or from a session of the court."
The defendant, sheriff of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, is the highest police authority in said county, and in the exercise of his duties, was empowered and directed by virtue of his office to enforce the mandate of said County Court.
In accordance with the provisions of law, this Court requested the impaneling of a statutory three judge court. Said request was refused for the reason that the order or regulation was local in nature, being issued by a county court, and did, therefore, not relate to the action of an officer of the state or of an order made by an administrative board or commission of the state. Wilentz v. Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World, 306 U.S. 573, 59 S.Ct. 709, 83 L.Ed. 994; 28 U.S.C.A. § 2281 et seq.
Application was made ex-parte for a temporary restraining order, which was granted.
American Bar Association Judicial Canon 35, as adopted September 30, 1937, provides:
Since I am in agreement with this Canon of the American Bar Association, the restraining order issued did not interfere with the order or regulation of the Westmoreland County Court as it related to the taking of photographs in the courtroom of any judge, or places in such close proximity thereto as to interfere with the orderly proceedings of the court, in the conduct of trials actually in progress.
The temporary restraining order provides:
When a court room or facilities in close proximity thereto would be invaded by a reporter or reporters with camera, no judge, with all the power of the law at his command, can maintain the order and decorum essential to the intelligent discharge of the court's proper function.
The defendant appealed from the granting of said restraining order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and also filed a writ of prohibition in said appellate court to the temporary restraining order issued by this Court. The appellate court denied the petition for writ of prohibition and dismissed the appeal for want or jurisdiction, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to move the district court for the dissolution of the temporary restraining order, and to appeal if such motion be denied or a preliminary injunction be issued after hearing.
Application has been made for the dissolution of the temporary restraining order previously entered by this Court, a full and complete hearing has been held on said motion and testimony has been offered in support of the application for a preliminary injunction.
Pending the determination of the questions presented, the Court extended the temporary restraining order and clarified its intention, said clarification order being as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty
...232 F.2d 504; Hood v. Board of Trustees, 4 Cir., 232 F.2d 626. For further collection of authorities see: Tribune Review Publishing Co. v. Thomas, D.C., 120 F.Supp. 362, 372, and discussion in Meredith v. City of Winter Haven, ...
-
Mack, In re
...to have adjudicated the legality of the order or regulation issued by the Courts of Westmoreland County.' Tribune Review Pub. Co. v. Thomas, D. C., 120 F.Supp. 362. With reasonable promptness the Tribune Review Publishing Company, with its publisher David W. Mack, applied to this Court for ......
-
Brown v. Chastain
...law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition." Tribune Review Publishing Co. v. Thomas, 120 F.Supp. 362, 369-370 (W.D.Pa., 1954). Appellants allege that the acts of Judges Chastain, Weaver and Stone of the Juvenile and Domestic Relati......
-
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Brautigam, 58-409
...1586.12 Thus a vital federal question emerges [Garland v. Torre, 2 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 545, 548; Tribune Review Pub. Co. v. Thomas, D.C.W.D.Pa.1954, 120 F.Supp. 362, 369] regarding the denial of defendant's privilege of critical fair comment. See Julian v. American Business Consultants. 2 ......