Construction
| Cited | Statutes | Annotation |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92 | 61.880, 61.878 | University violated the Open Records Act because the university did not (1) show a specific exemption applied to a particular record, (2) redact personally identifying information, or (3) show records were exempt through a proper index, and (4) refused to let the Attorney General review redacted records. Kernel Press, Inc. v. Univ. of Ky., 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019, sub. op., 2019 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 905 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019). Link |
| 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92 | 61.871, 61.872, 61.878, 61.870 | Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) did not bar a university from releasing to a newspaper all records sought under the Open Records Act because, while FERPA barred release of unredacted education records contained in a Title IX investigation file, not all the records sought were education records directly relating to a student. Kernel Press, Inc. v. Univ. of Ky., 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019, sub. op., 2019 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 905 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019). Link |
| Bowling v. Brandenburg | 61.878 | Notwithstanding that KRS 61.884 allows any person to have access to any public record relating to him or in which he is mentioned by name, a citizen was not entitled to a copy of a tape recording of a 911 call reporting that the citizen had threatened to kill his own wife and other members of his family, as the disclosure of such recording would have constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of the 911 caller in violation of this section. Bowling v. Brandenburg, 37 S.W.3d 785, 2000 Ky. App. LEXIS 22 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000). Link |
| Bowling v. Brandenburg | 61.884 | Notwithstanding that this section allows any person to have access to any public record relating to him or in which he is mentioned by name, a citizen was not entitled to a copy of a tape recording of a 911 call reporting that the citizen had threatened to kill his own wife and other members of his family, as the disclosure of such recording would have constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of the 911 caller in violation of KRS 61.878. Bowling v. Brandenburg, 37 S.W.3d 785, 2000 Ky. App. LEXIS 22 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000). Link |
| Lawson v. Office of the Attorney Gen. | 61.882, 61.878 | General Assembly mandated the non-disclosure of exempt records, a mandate the person or entity whose interest the exemption protects may seek to enforce in the circuit court; disclosure of an exempt record is not precluded if the intended beneficiaries waive their right to non-disclosure, and the statutory mandate that prosecutorial files be and remain totally exempt accords the prosecutor an unlimited discretion to deny disclosure, but it does not preclude him or her from allowing it. Lawson v. Office of the AG, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| Lawson v. Office of the Attorney Gen. | 61.878 | While the interests reckoned on the privacy side of the balance generally do not dissipate, and in some instances even grow stronger, with the passage of time, it is no less true that the public’s interest in knowing what the government is up to includes a strong historical interest in knowing what the government was up to; the passage of time, therefore, while a factor relevant to the balancing of interests required by the privacy exemption, will seldom be dispositive in-and-of itself. Lawson v. Office of the AG, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| Lawson v. Office of the Attorney Gen. | 61.871, 61.872, 61.878 | General Assembly did not intend to mandate an iron rule of non-disclosure whenever an exemption contained in the Kentucky Open Records Act applies because such a rule would run counter to the principle, fundamental in the law, that rights, even fundamental rights, may be waived, and the Act’s express policy, is the free and open examination of public records. Lawson v. Office of the AG, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| Palmer v. Driggers | 61.878 | Fact that a complaint against a police officer was considered at a closed hearing, as required by a legislative enactment, did not mean that the complaint which gave rise to the hearing was exempt from public disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(l). Palmer v. Driggers, 60 S.W.3d 591, 2001 Ky. App. LEXIS 1165 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). Link |
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.