Skip to main content
Cited Statutes Annotation
2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92 61.872 Kentucky takes the view that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits disclosure of education records under the Kentucky Open Records Act; Kentucky has adopted its own version of FERPA, applicable to elementary and secondary schools indicating the General Assembly has determined that education records are not subject to the Open Records Act. 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
Dept. of Corrections v. Courier-Journal 61.878 In construing the term “party” in subsection (1) of this section, the appellate court attached significance to the Legislature’s word choice, which was “party” not “person” and interpreted this to mean that a newspaper seeking to inspect records of a prison inmate was not a “party” in the litigation involving the inmate; thus, this section was inapplicable, and the documents requested were open for inspection pursuant to KRS 61.872. Department of Corrections v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times, 914 S.W.2d 349, 1996 Ky. App. LEXIS 10 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996). Link
Dept. of Corrections v. Courier-Journal 61.872 In construing the term “party” in KRS 61.878(1), the appellate court attached significance to the Legislature’s word choice, which was “party” not “person” and interpreted this to mean that a newspaper seeking to inspect records of a prison inmate was not a “party” in the litigation involving the inmate, thus KRS 61.878(1) was inapplicable, and the documents requested were open for inspection pursuant to this section. Department of Corrections v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times, 914 S.W.2d 349, 1996 Ky. App. LEXIS 10 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996). Link
E.W. Scripps Co. v. City of Maysville 61.805 Clearly, the intent of the legislature in enacting the Open Meetings Act was to ensure that the people of the Commonwealth are given advance notice of meetings conducted by public agencies. E.W. Scripps Co. v. Maysville, 790 S.W.2d 450, 1990 Ky. App. LEXIS 71 (Ky. Ct. App. 1990). Link
Hoy v. Kentucky Industrial Revitalization Authority 61.878 Since corporation sought investment tax credits through Kentucky Industry Revitalization Authority (KIRA) which was established by and administered through KRS Chapter 154 and the information submitted by corporation to KIRA was done in conjunction with said application for the tax credits and since by amending the Open Records Act, specifically KRS 61.878 (1)(c)(2)(b), to include documents submitted pursuant to KRS Chapter 154, it is evident that the Legislature sought to protect those companies which participate in the revitalization and development of industry in Kentucky, such documents were exempt from disclosure. Hoy v. Kentucky Indus. Revitalization Auth., 907 S.W.2d 766, 1995 Ky. LEXIS 125 (Ky. 1995). Link
Kentucky Bd. of Exam. v. Courier-Journal 61.878 To infer that subdivision (1)(a) of this section may be invoked only where the subject information is already protected under a different paragraph would require a reading of the statute which is, to say the least, esoteric — and which, incidentally, would render subdivision (1)(a) a nullity. A plain reading of subdivision (1)(a) reveals an unequivocal legislative intention that certain records, albeit they are “public,” are not subject to inspection, because disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Judging by order, if nothing more, one might say that subdivision (1)(a) is the foremost exception to the disclosure rule. Certainly it is an independently viable exception, not subordinate to any other, and not restricted to preliminary materials or non-final matters. Kentucky Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 826 S.W.2d 324, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 35 (Ky. 1992). 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
Zink v. Commonwealth, Department of Workers' Claims, Labor Cabinet 61.872, 61.878 The Legislature in adopting the open records law clearly intended to grant any member of the public as much right to access to information as the next; the only relevant public interest in disclosure to be considered is the extent to which disclosure would serve the principle purpose of the Open Records Act. Zink v. Department of Workers' Claims, Labor Cabinet, 902 S.W.2d 825, 1994 Ky. App. LEXIS 141 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994). 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.