WBAL-TV Div., Hearst Corp. v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a news station had to disclose certain video tapes because the information contained in the video tapes was not available from any other source
• holding no abuse of discretion in denial of TV station’s motion, based on a qualified First Amendment privilege, to quash summons by the State to produce the unbroadcast 5 In an action under this section: (1
• holding no abuse of discretion in denial of TV station’s motion, based on a qualified First Amendment privilege, to quash summons by the State to produce the unbroadcast 5 In an action under this section: (1
• reviewing a court’s order denying a motion to quash a summons under the abuse of discretion standard
• holding no abuse of discretion in denial of TV station's motion, based on a qualified First Amendment privilege, to quash summons by the State to produce the unbroadcast portions of a videotaped interview with criminal defendant for possible use at trial
• holding no abuse of discretion in denial of TV station’s motion, based on a qualified First Amendment privilege, to quash summons by the State to produce unbroadcast portions of a videotaped interview with a criminal defendant for possible use at trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).