Skip to main content
Cited Statutes Annotation
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.870 61.870 Unpublished decision: Under the pre-amendment version of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.870(1)(h), the management group, which provided management and operational services for the county public waterworks district and other services for a local city, and received funds from state and local authorities, qualified as a public agency.  Pike Cnty. Fiscal Court v. Util. Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 2015 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 880 (Ky. Ct. App. June 12, 2015), aff'd, 531 S.W.3d 3, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 441 (Ky. 2017). Link
Blair v. Hendricks 61.870 The Kentucky State Penitentiary, and other Kentucky facilities, are required to comply with open records requests. Blair v. Hendricks, 30 S.W.3d 802, 2000 Ky. App. LEXIS 69 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000), overruled in part, Lang v. Sapp, 71 S.W.3d 133, 2002 Ky. App. LEXIS 452 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002). Link
Cape Publications v. Univ. of Louisville 61.878, 61.870 Future donors to the University of Lousiville Foundation are on notice that their gifts are being made to a public institution and, therefore, are subject to disclosure under KRS 61.871 regardless of any requests for anonymity. Cape Pub'ns, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 176 (Ky. 2008). Link
Cape Publications v. Univ. of Louisville 61.871, 61.878, 61.870 Names of donors to a public university’s foundation who had not requested anonymity were subject to the disclosure requirement of KRS 61.871, as the foundation was a public entity under KRS 61.870, and the donors had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Cape Pub'ns, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 176 (Ky. 2008). Link
Cape Publications v. Univ. of Louisville 61.878, 61.870 As the status of a public university’s foundation as a public entity under KRS 61.870 had not been clearly established, it was reasonable for donors to the foundation who requested anonymity to expect their request to be honored. Therefore, a newspaper was properly denied access to donor identities and the amounts of their donations under Kentucky's Open Records Act. Cape Pub'ns, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 176 (Ky. 2008). Link
Frankfort Pub. v. Kentucky St. Un. Found 61.870 The Kentucky State University Foundation is a “public agency” as defined in this section and therefore subject to the Open Records law. An interpretation of this section which does not include the Foundation as a public agency is clearly inconsistent with the natural and harmonious reading of this section considering the overall purpose of the Kentucky Open Records law. The obvious purpose of the Open Records law is to make available for public inspection all records in the custody of public agencies by whatever label they have at the moment. The phrase “or agency thereof” in subsection (1) prior to the 1992 amendment is applicable to all units of government listed before it in the same subsection. It is the clear intent of the law to make public the records of all units of government by whatever title for public inspection. Frankfort Pub. Co. v. Kentucky State University Foundation, Inc., 834 S.W.2d 681, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 103 (Ky. 1992) (decision prior to 1992 amendment). Link
Kentucky Central v. Park Broadcasting 61.870 The role of the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance as “rehabilitator” is legally separate from his official role as the regulator of the state’s insurance department, and although he is appointed by and responsible to the court, the commissioner is not a “governing body” as contemplated in subsection (1)(i) of this section nor does he qualify as a “public agency” as described in subsection (1)(a) of this section. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co. by & Through Stephens v. Park Broadcasting, 913 S.W.2d 330, 1996 Ky. App. LEXIS 6 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996). Link
Lexington Herald-Leader Co. v. University of Kentucky Presidential Search Committee 61.805 The Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky was created by statute, so that the Presidential Search Committee, which was created by formal action of the Board of Trustees, was a public agency and therefore subject to the provisions of this section. Lexington Herald-Leader Co. v. University of Kentucky Presidential Search Committee, 732 S.W.2d 884, 1987 Ky. LEXIS 227 (Ky. 1987). Link
Stinson v. State Bd. of Accountancy 61.805 The State Board of Accountancy is not a quasi-judicial body excluded from the definition of “public agency” found in this section, since otherwise any administrative agency which occasionally held hearings on certain matters could exempt itself from the open meetings statutes and, moreover, there would be no need for the exception to the open meeting requirement found in KRS 61.810(6) (now (1)(f)), because any agency which held any disciplinary hearings would be quasi-judicial; accordingly, the board violated the open meeting laws by conducting its final deliberations on the question of whether to censure an accountant in a closed session. Stinson v. State Bd. of Accountancy, 625 S.W.2d 589, 1981 Ky. App. LEXIS 304 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981). Link
Univ. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., Inc. 61.870 Circuit court properly found that the operator of a hospital was a public agency and within the scope of Kentucky's Open Records Act because a majority of the operator's board of directors were appointed by a university, itself a public agency. Univ. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. ACLU of Ky., Inc., 467 S.W.3d 790, 2014 Ky. App. LEXIS 159 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014). 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.