Preliminary Materials
| Cited | Statutes | Annotation |
|---|---|---|
| Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878 | 61.878 | Circuit court did not err finding that the analysis of internal affairs (IA) documents under the Kentucky Open Records Act did not end once the documents had been classified under the preliminary exception of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878(i) and (j) as the files did not maintain an indefinite preliminary status. However, that same statutory authority provided the state police with a limited authority to withhold portions of the IA file concerning any disciplinary recommendations or opinions not relied upon by the Commissioner in his final decision. Commonwealth v. Trageser, 600 S.W.3d 749, 2020 Ky. App. LEXIS 52 (Ky. Ct. App. 2020). Link |
| Baker v. Jones | 61.882, 61.878 | Since emails between a city mayor and the city council members were preliminary discussions concerning what course of action to take with respect to a financial controversy regarding a local convention center, they were within the exemption from disclosure of the Open Records Act pursuant to KRS 61.878(1), and a city and the mayor were not liable for willfully withholding records under KRS 61.882(5). Baker v. Jones, 199 S.W.3d 749, 2006 Ky. App. LEXIS 12 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). Link |
| Courier-Journal v. Jones | 61.878 | Subsections (h) and (i) of this section exempt Governor’s daily appointment ledgers as within the exception for preliminary materials from media inspection and that, as such, summary judgment denying their availability to newspaper under the Open Records Act was appropriate. Courier-Journal v. Jones, 895 S.W.2d 6, 1995 Ky. App. LEXIS 58 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995). Link |
| Kentucky St. Bd. of Med. v. Courier-Journal | 61.878 | Once final disciplinary action is taken by the Board of Medical Licensure, any complaint, report, memorandum, or letter made part of the record in such action is not within the exceptions to the Open Records Act found in subdivisions (1)(g) and (1)(h) of this section and must therefore be made available to the public. Kentucky State Bd. of Medical Licensure v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 663 S.W.2d 953, 1983 Ky. App. LEXIS 327 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). Link |
| Kentucky St. Bd. of Med. v. Courier-Journal | 61.878 | The attempt by the Board of Medical Licensure to categorize complaints against physicians as formal public complaints and private individual complaints has no bearing on whether such complaints must be released under the Open Records Act. Inasmuch as final actions stem from the complaints, they must be incorporated as part of the final determination and are therefore not exempt under subdivisions (1)(g) or (1)(h) of this section. Kentucky State Bd. of Medical Licensure v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 663 S.W.2d 953, 1983 Ky. App. LEXIS 327 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). Link |
| Kentucky St. Bd. of Med. v. Courier-Journal | 61.878 | Those documents defined in subdivisions (1)(g) and (1)(h) of this section which become a part of the records adopted by the Board of Medical Licensure as the basis of its final action, become releasable as public records under subdivision (1)(f), unless exempted by other provisions of KRS 61.870 through 61.884. Kentucky State Bd. of Medical Licensure v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 663 S.W.2d 953, 1983 Ky. App. LEXIS 327 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). Link |
| Palmer v. Driggers | 61.878 | Fact that a police officer resigned before the conclusion of his termination hearing did not render the complaint which gave rise to the termination hearing “preliminary materials,” which were not subject to public disclosure under the Kentucky Open Records Act, KRS 61.878. Palmer v. Driggers, 60 S.W.3d 591, 2001 Ky. App. LEXIS 1165 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). Link |
| Univ. of Louisville v. Sharp | 61.878 | Where a university appealed a circuit’s denial of its motion for summary judgment, the university had not violated the Open Records Act; the circuit court and the Officer of the Attorney General incorrectly determined that the four e-mails at issue lost the preliminary status afforded to them by KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j) because the e-mails were incorporated into a final agency action, a meeting, and thus had to be disclosed. There had been no final agency action. Univ. of Louisville v. Sharp, 416 S.W.3d 313, 2013 Ky. App. LEXIS 161 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013). 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.