Judicial Review
| Cited | Statutes | Annotation |
|---|---|---|
| Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.880|Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.880 | 61.880 | Summary judgment finding an Open Records Act (ORA) violation was proper against the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Cabinet) because the Cabinet's failure to give the Attorney General enough information to answer a request to review the Cabinet's denial caused the Attorney General to find the Cabinet violated the ORA, which the Cabinet did not timely appeal, under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.880(5)(a), giving the finding the force and effect of law, under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.880(5)(b). Cabinet v. Todd Cnty. Std., 488 S.W.3d 1, 2015 Ky. App. LEXIS 171 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015). Link |
| 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 169 | 61.880 | Although the Department of Revenue (DOR) probably should have raised its defense before the Attorney General, the DOR sufficiently preserved this issue when it included the defense as an aggregate reason for denying an attorney’s request for certain documents. Wyrick v. Dep't of Revenue, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 169 (Ky. Ct. App. May 30, 2008), aff'd, 323 S.W.3d 710, 2010 Ky. LEXIS 260 (Ky. 2010). Link |
| 2022 Ky. App. LEXIS 99 | 61.882 | 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, SPD must justify that withholding the records was still necessary based on the specific concerns it raised earlier. Courier-Journal, Inc. v. Shively Police Dep't, 2022 Ky. App. LEXIS 99 (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2022). Link |
| Harilson v. Shepherd | 61.882, 61.880 | Trial court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission (LRC) regarding a newspaper’s request for legislative records because (1) the court’s statutory jurisdiction was not limited to records requests or cases where the LRC issued no decision in 30 days, and (2) the Open Records Act’s statutory judicial review right was incorporated into the governing statute. Harilson v. Shepherd, 585 S.W.3d 748, 2019 Ky. LEXIS 380 (Ky. 2019). Link |
| Univ. of Ky. v. Hatemi | 61.848, 61.880, 61.846 | In this Open Records Act action, the order was reversed in part because the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to conclude the university violated the Open Meetings Act where neither party invoked the circuit court’s jurisdiction to enforce provisions. Univ. of Ky. v. Hatemi, 636 S.W.3d 857, 2021 Ky. App. LEXIS 114 (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). 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.