Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 742.09
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 78550
...paternity proceeding. Not only did the trial court decline to dissolve the April 14 order, but in effect it entered a new injunction permanently continuing the gag order beyond the termination of the paternity proceedings. Mason primarily relies on section 742.09, Florida Statutes (1989), as authority for the trial court order....
...[4] The final issue presented to the trial court was a request that the file, which had been sealed during the proceedings, be unsealed. That request was denied. Chapter 742 provides for mandatory sealing of the file in certain circumstances not involved here. See § 742.091, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1484, 13 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1775, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8652
...right to privacy that is no less important than the rights expressly specified in the Constitution. Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U.S. 479,
85 S.Ct. 1678,
14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965). See also Art. I, § 23, Fla. Const. [1] §
63.162(2), Fla. Stat. (1985); §
742.09, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 17720, 2009 WL 4068108
...d as moot. Petition denied. DAVIS, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur. . The circuit court proceeding giving rise to this one appears to be a paternity case. Consistent with the legislative intent to protect the anonymity of parties to such actions, § 742.09, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6618, 1994 WL 316248
.../b/a The Miami Review and Time Warner, Inc. [hereinafter referred to as “the newspaper”]. We affirm. Doe filed a complaint against the newspaper alleging that the newspaper published her real name as a party to a paternity action in violation of section 742.09, Florida Statutes (1991), and thereby violated her right to privacy....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...married another man after she was served with the paternity action and the second man acknowledged that he was the father of the child. The second man is not a party to this lawsuit. We reverse because we conclude that neither existing case law nor the provisions in section 742.091, Florida Statutes (2004), compels dismissal of this action....
...2d DCA 1998), this court extended that protection to a child whose parents were both listed on the child’s birth certificate at the time the child was born and who married two months after the child’s birth. Id. at 164-65 . We did so in part based upon the provisions of section 742.091, which reads: If the mother of any child born out of wedlock and the reputed father shall at any time after its birth intermarry, the child shall in all respects be deemed and held to be the child of the husband and wife, as though bo...
...
710 So.2d at 164-65 . In addition, although the petitioner in I.A. alleged that he was the biological father of the child, he did not file an action seeking paternity until the child was three years old. M.M. argues that this case is controlled by LA. and section
742.091 because the actions following the service of the paternity complaint establish a legal father for the child that prohibits any challenge to the child’s parentage....
...arriage to another man during the pen-dency of a paternity action. 1 We decline *640 to further extend I A to include the facts of this case. We conclude that the provisions of section
742.10(1) are more applicable to these proceedings than those in section
742.091....
...If a DNA test establishes the second man’s paternity, this matter will be easy to resolve. If not, it appears that the trial court may be handling a matter of first impression. Reversed and remanded. SALCINES and KELLY, JJ., Concur. . Further, we note that section 742.09 l's language about dismissing the paternity action seems to assume that the reputed father would be the defendant in the paternity action, not an uninvolved third party....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 5 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2227, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16186
...No reasons or authority for the order is stated in it except in the introductory paragraph, in which it is stated that it has come to the attention of the Chief Judge that despite the illegality of publishing of names of parties to paternity actions as provided in Section 742.09, Florida Statutes, “certain problems have arisen regarding this matter”....
...s necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice, (b) no less restrictive alternative measures were available and (c) closure would in fact achieve the objects sought to be accomplished by the order; and (3) that Section 742.09, Florida Statutes (1977), is unconstitutional on its face as applied to petitioner, since the statute amounts to an unlawful prior restraint upon the right of free speech and press in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of...
...Willis dealt with a purported “administrative order” which was found by this court to run counter to the rules of practice and procedure adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida. In the case before us, the basis for the administrative order seems to be the desire of the Chief Judge to implement the requirements of Section 742.09, Florida Statutes, by removing court files in paternity cases from the scrutiny on the news media....
...The record before us in this case does not disclose whether *DCCCXCIX notice was given either by posting, or otherwise, nor are we advised of any hearing or consideration of objections to the order by petitioner or any other interested persons. As for petitioner’s argument concerning the constitutionality of Section 742.09, Florida Statutes, it would appear that a petition for review such as the one before us would not be the proper procedure for a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute....
