Illustrative Cases
| Cited | Statutes | Annotation |
|---|---|---|
| 387 Fed. Appx. 538 | 61.872, 61.878 | Although the former employees alleged that the general manager’s production of the disciplinary action forms in response to a record request was actionable because, at least as to two employees, the forms contained untrue statements about the employees acting dishonestly when they examined confidential information on the employer’s computer system without permission following one of the employee’s discharge, the general manager’s decisions to discharge the employees were not conditional and did not need the board of directors’ approval; the general manager had the authority to terminate employees, and the terminations represented his final action. That the discharges could potentially have been set aside by the board during the grievance hearing did not transform the disciplinary action forms into preliminary drafts, notes, or correspondence. Burgess v. Paducah Area Transit Auth., 387 Fed. Appx. 538, 2010 FED App. 0421N, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14384 (6th Cir. Ky. 2010). Link |
| Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878 | 61.878 | Business’s proposal lost its status as preliminary and therefore the exemption in Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878(1)(i), (j) did not apply; the proposal was merely an offer submitted in response to the company’s request, and the proposal remained subject to additional negotiation and approval by other agencies. However, once the company excluded the business from its list of finalists, the proposal was no longer subject to change, and thus the final action occurred at that point. Louisville/Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov't v. Courier-Journal, Inc., 605 S.W.3d 72, 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 147 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019). Link |
| Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878 | 61.878 | Company’s interest in relocating was extensively publicized, and this publicity amounted to a public disclosure of the company’s interest in relocating within the Commonwealth, such that the exception to disclosure under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878(1)(d) did not apply. Louisville/Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov't v. Courier-Journal, Inc., 605 S.W.3d 72, 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 147 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019). Link |
| 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54136 | 61.878 | District Court vacated the denial of a transit authority’s motion for summary judgment on two employees’ defamation claims because the Kentucky Open Records Act required release of the documents at issue; because the employees were not required to grieve their terminations, the disciplinary actions taken by their manager could have been the final action and, therefore, KRS 61.878 did not exempt the records from the requirements of the Act. Because the Act applied, the transit authority was required by law to release the documents. Burgess v. Paducah Area Transit Auth., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54136 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 2, 2006). 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 |
| 2022 Ky. App. LEXIS 99 | 61.878 | In this action involving the failure of the Shively Police Department (SPD) to make disclosures pursuant to the Open Records Act (the ORA) on the basis that it would cause harm to an ongoing criminal investigation, dashcam and bodycam footage of the pursuit and accident could not be withheld in full because they contained footage of the fatal accident and the privacy exemption was not nearly so broad under the circumstances as to prohibit all disclosure of the footage made of the chase and collisions. Courier-Journal, Inc. v. Shively Police Dep't, 2022 Ky. App. LEXIS 99 (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2022). Link |
| 2011 Ky. App. LEXIS 202 | 61.878 | Prosecution against a manslaughter victim’s wife was incomplete and any law enforcement records exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(h) were not yet subject to disclosure. The wife had three years, from the date of the final judgment, to file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence under RCr P. 11.42. Cincinnati Enquirer v. City of Fort Thomas, 2011 Ky. App. LEXIS 202 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2011). Link |
| 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92 | 61.878 | University had yet to fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Kentucky Open Records Act because it had not separated the exempt from the nonexempt records, redacted any personally identifying information or provided sufficient proof that the records were exempt under the Open Records Act through a proper index. 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 |
| 2017 Ky. App. LEXIS 9 | 61.871, 61.872, 61.878 | Unpublished decision: Department of Revenue was required to produce for inspection redacted copies of its final rulings because the production of the material a tax attorney and tax analysts sought was required by the Open Records Act; the Department's final rulings contained information related to its reasoning and analysis with respect to its task in administration of the tax laws, and that information could be made available without jeopardizing taxpayers' privacy interests under the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. Fin. & Admin. Cabinet v. Sommer, 2017 Ky. App. LEXIS 9 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2017, sub. op., 2017 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 624 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2017). Link |
| City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer | 61.878 | When a newspaper sought a police department’s entire file in a murder case, the file was not categorically exempt due to the potential that the defendant in the murder case would collaterally attack the defendant’s conviction, due to the file’s relation to a prospective law enforcement action, because, inter alia, the exemption in KRS 61.878(1)(h) was properly invoked only when a record’s release, due to the record’s content, posed more than a hypothetical risk of harm. City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 375 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer | 61.878 | Law enforcement exemption in KRS 61.878(1)(h) is appropriately invoked only when an agency can articulate a factual basis for applying the exemption when, because of a record’s content, the record’s release poses a concrete risk of harm to the agency in a prospective action, which must be something more than a hypothetical or speculative concern. City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 375 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer | 61.878 | When a newspaper sought a police department’s entire file in a murder case, the file was not categorically exempt due to the potential that the defendant in the murder case would collaterally attack the defendant’s conviction, due to the file’s relation to a prospective law enforcement action, because, inter alia, Skaggs v. Redford, exempting a prosecutor’s litigation file from disclosure, did not apply to the police department’s file. City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 375 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer | 61.878 | When a newspaper sought a police department’s entire file in a murder case, the file was not categorically exempt due to the potential that the defendant in the murder case would collaterally attack the defendant’s conviction, due to the file’s relation to a prospective law enforcement action, because, inter alia, a city made no attempt to identify potentially exempt material in the file. City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 375 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| Dep't of Revenue v. Eifler | 61.878 | Because records that identified registered payers of utility license tax easily could be redacted to comply with privacy requirements and a state website did not provide an alternative remedy, the records were not exempt from open records disclosure after redaction; moreover, the evidence supported a finding that the documents requested were maintained. Dep't of Revenue v. Eifler, 436 S.W.3d 530, 2013 Ky. App. LEXIS 140 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013). Link |
| Doe v. Conway | 61.878 | Disclosure of records arguably containing information of a private nature about a former state cabinet official and lobbyist was required by the Kentucky Open Records Act because the public’s interest in inspection greatly outweighed any privacy interest that may have existed; thus, the privacy interest exception in KRS 61.878(1)(a) was inapplicable. Doe v. Conway, 357 S.W.3d 505, 2010 Ky. App. LEXIS 221 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010). Link |
| Medley v. Board of Educ., Shelby County | 61.878 | Substantial evidence did not support a Circuit Court’s finding that, under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 USCS § 1232g, and the Kentucky Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), KRS 160.700 et seq., a teacher had no legitimate educational interest in viewing videotape recordings of her own classroom. The case was remanded for a hearing to determine whether her request under the Kentucky Open Records Act, KRS 61.870 et seq., was made pursuant to a legitimate educational interest as defined by FERPA and KFERPA. Medley v. Bd. of Educ., 168 S.W.3d 398, 2004 Ky. App. LEXIS 305 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004). 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.