Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/5-pleading-format-c-court-review-of-administrative-decision/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:03:33+00:00

Document:
Pleadings must be in the format generally prescribed for civil litigation in the Alaska Court System.
Special action: This type of action is now the proper procedure to obtain relief previously obtained by writs of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition. See Rules of Procedure for Special Actions (Ariz. R.P.S.A.).
Special actions regarding OML typically involve situations where the public body has failed to perform a duty required by law as to which it has no discretion. Ariz. R.P.S.A. 3(a).
Declaratory judgment action: Occasionally such actions are brought by a public body to resolve its duties under the OML. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 57.
The normal rules of pleading that govern civil cases apparently apply in FOIA suits. See generally Rule 8, Ark. R. Civ. P. Arkansas is a “fact pleading” jurisdiction with requirements more stringent than those applicable in federal court. See Harvey v. Eastman Kodak Co., 271 Ark. 783, 610 S.W.2d 582 (1981). More informal pleading may be permissible in FOIA cases, however, because the act refers to a “petition” that is to be filed in an “appeal” to the appropriate circuit court. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107(a) & (b). There being no reported cases on this point, an FOIA plaintiff should follow the general pleading rules. Cf. Dauer v. Ponder, 274 Ark. 166, 623 S.W.2d 3 (1981).
A petition for mandamus must meet all statutory requirements for a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure, the local rules of the court, and any applicable case law. Lawsuits for declaratory or injunctive relief must contain the required allegations and must comply with state law.
A complaint for injunctive relief should be verified or accompanied by an affidavit of the party seeking relief. It should also state that relief is being sought pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-6-402(9), specify the relief requested, and state that no plain or adequate remedy exists at law.
The Federal Rules are generally followed by the Chancery Court.
Suits to enforce the Act are typically initiated by filing with the court a verified complaint against the agency officials who have violated or threatened to violate the Act, explaining the violation and describing the relief sought. The complaint typically seeks issuance of an injunction to remedy past and/or prevent future violations and is accompanied by a motion and supporting memorandum to the same effect. Where time is an issue, the motion should request entry of an immediate injunction and request that the court hear the matter on an emergency basis.
See Haw. R. Civ. Proc. 10 and court rules.
The statute requires no specific pleading format. The complaint should describe the violation and relief sought with sufficient specificity to meet the notice pleading requirements of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure and otherwise comply with those rules.
These are governed by Section 3(c) of the Act. The court may grant appropriate relief, including but not limited to a mandamus order to open a meeting, an injunction against future violations, or declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting.
Although courts are authorized to declare null and void any final actions taken at a closed meeting in violation of the Act, 5 ILCS 120/3(c), such actions are not necessarily void. People ex rel. Graf v. Village of Lake Bluff, 321 Ill. App. 3d 897, 907, 748 N.E.2d 801, 811, 255 Ill. Dec. 97, 107 (2d Dist. 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 206 Ill. 2d 541, 795 N.E.2d 281, 276 Ill. Dec. 928 (Ill. 2003). Relief under the Act is discretionary, see id., and minimal violations have been held not to support nullification of actions taken at such meetings. See Graf.
There is no specific pleading format other than that required for lawsuits generally. Pleading forms are governed by Rule 10 of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. Pleading captions must include the names of the parties, the title of the action, the court and cause number. Ind. R. Tr. P. 10. The pleadings must be signed, and copies served on all other parties or their counsel. Ind. R. Tr. P. 11, 4.
Pleading format is governed by the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure. See e.g., Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.401- 1.403.
No provisions. Action governed by K.S.A. Chapter 60.
Kentucky’s Open Meetings Act does not provide for any specific pleading format. Pleading formats in Kentucky’s Circuit Courts are governed generally by the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure and more specifically by local rules of the various Circuits.
To receive priority on the docket the pleading should alert the Circuit Court that the lawsuit concerns the Open Meetings Act. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.848(4).
The Act requires the filing of a petition. § 3-401(b). The petition may request a determination of the applicability of the Act's provisions, ask the court to compel the public body to comply with the Act, or request that the action of the public body be voided. § 3-401(b)(1). It must be noted that the public body enjoys a rebuttable presumption that its actions did not violate the Act. § 3-401(c). Thus, the party alleging a failure to comply has the burden of proof. Id.
Those seeking to have a decision of a public body invalidated under the OMA must allege not only that the public body failed to comply with the OMA, but also that this failure impaired the rights of the public. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.270(2); Esperance, supra, 280 N.W.2d at 563; and Cape v. Howell Board of Education, 145 Mich. App. 459, 378 N.W.2d 506, 510 (1985). "A mere recital that the rights of the public were impaired is insufficient to support a request for invalidation. . . . Rather, the plaintiff must present factual allegations to support the conclusion that the rights of the public were impaired." Jude, supra, 228 Mich. App. 667. The similar structure of the FOIA and OMA suggests that, as with the FOIA, an OMA plaintiff need not allege that the meetings in question were not subject to statutory exemption, since exemption is a defense to actions under the OMA. Booth Newspapers Inc. v. Regents of the University of Michigan, 93 Mich. App. 100, 286 N.W.2d 55, 59 (1979).
There is no particular pleading format and the court suggests that a petition rather than a formal complaint under the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure may be filed.
Nebraska Rules of Pleading in Civil Actions govern pleadings in civil cases. If complaining party files suit, such action must comply with general rules governing civil cases.
A private party could either file a suit Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure or file a petition for a writ of mandate under Chapter 34 of Nevada Revised Statutes.
The court action is initiated by a Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writs which alleges the public body's noncompliance with specific provisions of the OPMA and which requests specific forms of relief. See N.J.S.A. 10:4-15 and 10:4-16.
Follows normal New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Open Meetings Law does not prescribe or require any particular pleading format. However, complaints filed pursuant to the Open Meetings Law often include a request that it be treated as a petition for extraordinary injunctive relief, in the nature of a writ of mandamus.
The open meetings law does not contain special procedural rules; the traditional rules of civil procedure apply.
There is no special pleading format for enforcing the duties of the statute. The appendix includes a sample format.
There is no specific civil relief provided in the Act. To plead a cause of action, the petition should contain a statement showing that defendant is a public body, the wrongful action was part of the public meeting process, and the specific wrongful action alleged, i.e. not an agenda, failure to give notice, inadequacy of notice, unauthorized executive session, etc. Any action taken in willful violation of the Open Meeting Act "shall be invalid." 25 O.S. § 313. Willful is defined "to include any act or omission which has the effect of actually deceiving or misleading the public regarding the scope of matters to be taken up at the meeting. This would also include agency action which exceeds the scope of action defined by the notice." 2000 OK AG 07.
Pursuant to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, the Oregon Uniform Trial Court Rules and any local trial court rules.
The pleading is in the form of a complaint, alleging the violation and including a prayer for relief.
Summons and complaint are pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
Often this genre of actions requires pleading in the form of an affidavit.
The statute provides for no specific pleading format, but Tennessee citizenship should be included in the allegations since that status is necessary for standing to enforce the Act. See Curve Elementary School Parent & Teachers Org. v. Lauderdale County Sch. Bd., 855 S.W.2d at 858; T.C.A. § 8-44-106(a).
The pleading format in an Open Meetings Act case is no different than that for any other civil lawsuit in Texas. The procedures are governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
(18) a request for reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs and such other just and equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.
There is no prescribed format for pleadings — a simple complaint will do.
Suits for injunctive relief or for a writ of mandamus are equitable remedies, and thus, a petition in the form of a complaint seeking equitable remedies is appropriate. It must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit.
Not specified. The usual rules of civil procedure apply.
There is no established pleading format. The petition should contain a short and plain statement of the facts entitling the petitioner to relief and a description of the relief sought. If injunctive relief is sought, the petition must be verified, although generally no bond would be required. The form of the pleading will depend on the nature of the relief sought. It may be a petition for writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition, a declaratory judgment action, or a complaint seeking injunctive relief.
Pleading follows the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114(a) (1977, Rev. 1982). But see Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114(b). The Supreme Court has the authority to determine the content of the record upon review, pleadings to be filed, the time and manner for filing pleadings, records and other documents and the extent to which supplemental testimony and evidence may be taken or considered by the district court. Such rules would supersede existing statutory provisions.

References: v. 
 § 25
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 15
 v. 
 v. 
 § 313
 v. 
 § 8
 § 16
 § 16