Wrather-Alvarez Broadcasting, Inc. v. Hewicker, WRATHER-ALVAREZ
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 147 Cal.App.2d 509,305 P.2d 236 |
| Parties | BROADCASTING, Inc., a corporation, and Harold Keen, Petitioners, v. John A. HEWICKER, Judge of the Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego, State of California, Respondent. Civ. 5472. |
| Docket Number | WRATHER-ALVAREZ |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1957 |
Page 236
v.
John A. HEWICKER, Judge of the Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego, State of California, Respondent.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1957.
Hearing Denied March 5, 1957.
Page 237
[147 Cal.App.2d 510] Luce, Forward, Kunzel & Scripps, by Fred Kunzel, San Diego, for petitioners.
James Don Keller, Dist. Atty., and Claude B. Brown, Deputy Dist. Atty., San Diego, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Wrather-Alvarez Broadcasting, Inc. operates a television broadcasting station in San Diego, and through its agent, petitioner Harold Keen, broadcasts daily news programs. Respondent judge is engaged in the [147 Cal.App.2d 511] trial of a certain kidnaping case attracting considerable public attention. Petitioner Keen alleges that in attending the court proceedings and reporting the news he is unable to take longhand notes rapidly enough to accurately set forth the witnesses' testimony; that on December 21, 1956, in order to assist him, he took his assistant, a shorthand secretary, with him to said court for the purpose of taking shorthand notes of certain of the proceedings so he could make an accurate broadcast of the testimony; that said judge stated to him in open court that he would not allow Harold Keen or his assistant to take shorthand notes in the courtroom; that the trial judge announced there was only one official reporter for that court and that there would be no other reporter sitting around taking shorthand notes; that if the assistant was an authorized representative of the press in her own right, designated by some newspaper in San Diego, he would let her report but that she could not do it for some other reporter; that if Harold Keen wanted a transcript of any testimony he would have to obtain it from his reporter, at the reporter's convenience, and at his own expense; and that if Mr. Keen disagreed with him he suggested that Keen obtain a writ of mandamus. Petitioner then alleges he was unable to obtain a reporter's transcript in time for his broadcast because of press of business of the reporter.
This writ is sought to compel the trial judge to allow said Harold Keen and his assistant to take shorthand notes of the testimony of such witnesses as he may desire for use in his broadcasting program. An order to show cause was issued. A demurrer to the petition was interposed and an answer was filed admitting some of these allegations, denying others, and alleging that Harold Keen was interviewing, on his program, certain of the witnesses who had testified at the trial and who had been excused, and the judge thought this might well influence the jurors if they heard it and that this might interfere with the judicial process of his court; that he had the inherent power to preclude any one in his courtroom from taking shorthand notes of the proceedings where there was an official reporter present.
Page 238
Argument is made that the form of writ sought should have been a writ of prohibition rather than mandamus. Mandamus is the form of writ invited by the respondent court and it is an appropriate remedy for the enforcement of a civil right. Stone v. Board of Directors of City of Pasadena, 47 Cal.App.2d 749, 118 P.2d 866; Pacific Engine & Machine Works [147 Cal.App.2d 512] v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.2d 739, 745, 282 P.2d 937;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. Jordan
...C. v. American Broadcasting Co. (1954) 347 U.S. 284, 74 S.Ct. 593, 98 L.Ed. 699; Wrather-Alvarez Broadcasting Inc. v. Hewicker (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 509, 512 (5), 305 P.2d 'The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute......
-
Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd., B267719
...of a civil right. (See Hardy v. Stumpf (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 958, 961, 112 Cal.Rptr. 739, Wrather–Alvarez etc., Inc. v. Hewicker (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 509, 511, 305 P.2d 236.) Such questions are more than a little troubling given that Franceschi is an experienced litigator, one who has been ......
-
Lyles v. State, No. A-12595
...L.Ed. 1098; Public Utilities Comm. v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 72 S.Ct. 813, 96 L.Ed. 1068; Wrather-Alvarez Broadcasting Co. v. Hewicker, 147 Cal.App.2d 509, 305 P.2d 236; Superior Films, Inc., v. Department of Education, 346 U.S. 587, 74 S.Ct. 286, 98 L.Ed. 329. We are of the opinion freedom ......
-
Hardy v. Stumpf
...this issue for mandamus 'is an appropriate remedy for the enforcement of a civil right.' (Wrather-Alvarez etc., Inc. v. Hewicker, 147 Cal.App.2d 509, 511, 305 P.2d 236, It is well settled under present law that a person, including a female, does have the right not to be discriminated agains......
-
Weaver v. Jordan
...C. v. American Broadcasting Co. (1954) 347 U.S. 284, 74 S.Ct. 593, 98 L.Ed. 699; Wrather-Alvarez Broadcasting Inc. v. Hewicker (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 509, 512 (5), 305 P.2d 'The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute......
-
Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd., B267719
...of a civil right. (See Hardy v. Stumpf (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 958, 961, 112 Cal.Rptr. 739, Wrather–Alvarez etc., Inc. v. Hewicker (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 509, 511, 305 P.2d 236.) Such questions are more than a little troubling given that Franceschi is an experienced litigator, one who has been ......
-
Clark v. Yosemite Community College Dist., No. 85-1801
...a civil right. Hardy v. Stumpf, 37 Cal.App.3d 958, 961, 112 Cal.Rptr. 739, 741 (1974); Wrather-Alvarez Broadcasting, Inc. v. Hewicker, 147 Cal.App.2d 509, 305 P.2d 236, 238 (1957). In addition, relief in the form of damages may be granted together with a writ of mandate regarding the same c......
-
Lyles v. State, No. A-12595
...L.Ed. 1098; Public Utilities Comm. v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 72 S.Ct. 813, 96 L.Ed. 1068; Wrather-Alvarez Broadcasting Co. v. Hewicker, 147 Cal.App.2d 509, 305 P.2d 236; Superior Films, Inc., v. Department of Education, 346 U.S. 587, 74 S.Ct. 286, 98 L.Ed. 329. We are of the opinion freedom ......