Proposed or Pending Litigation
| Cited | Statutes | Annotation |
|---|---|---|
| Chandler v. Bullitt County | 61.810, 61.815 | Where a planning commission explained it was going into closed session, the minutes reflected the discussion concerning litigation, motions to authorize the litigation were made in open meetings, and there was no record of anyone requesting to address the commission or voice concern about the commission’s actions, there was no evidence that the owners were prejudiced by a planning commission’s failure to state a specific provision of KRS 61.810(1)(c), 61.815(1) when it went into closed session. Chandler v. Bullitt County Joint Planning Comm'n, 125 S.W.3d 851, 2002 Ky. App. LEXIS 2358 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002). Link |
| Cunningham v. Whalen | 61.810, 61.800 | City did not violate the Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.800 et seq., when it conducted settlement negotiations privately with the property owners regarding a zoning matter where the settlement agreement itself was voted on in an open meeting. Although the residents claimed that the private settlement negotiations violated that law, an exception in the Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.810(1)(c), allowed discussion regarding proposed or pending litigation to be conducted privately so long as the final settlement agreement itself was voted on in an open meeting. Cunningham v. Whalen, 373 S.W.3d 438, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 109 (Ky. 2012), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 1158, 133 S. Ct. 1245, 185 L. Ed. 2d 179, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1105 (U.S. 2013). Link |
| Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Ed. v. Courier-Journal | 61.810 | There is no requirement in the Open Meetings Law that the county board of education and its governing body give notice of an executive session in order to confer with their attorneys concerning proposed or pending litigation, for this matter is expressly excluded by the terms of this section and moreover involves the attorney-client relationship. Jefferson County Board of Education v. Courier-Journal, 551 S.W.2d 25, 1977 Ky. App. LEXIS 693 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). Link |
| Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov. v. Lexhl | 61.810 | Exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that were capable of repetition, yet evading review was not applied on appeal when a county government’s declaratory judgment action against a newspaper asking for closed council meetings under the litigation exception to the Open Meetings Act was dismissed as moot because the county government did not show that a similarly-situated party would be subject to the same action again. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. Lexhl, L.P., 315 S.W.3d 331, 2009 Ky. App. LEXIS 218 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009). Link |
| Webster Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin | 61.805, 61.810, 61.800, 61.815 | Litigation exception to open public meetings was not applicable to the school board’s decision directing legal counsel to pursue a challenge to the petition to recall the board’s nickel tax because it was a “final action” of the board to authorize litigation. Webster County Bd. of Educ. v. Newell, 392 S.W.3d 431, 2013 Ky. App. LEXIS 31 (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.