Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/c-court/
Timestamp: 2019-02-23 00:38:53
Document Index: 531724305

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11130', '§ 54960', '§ 54960', '§ 54960', '§ 24', '§ 10005', '§ 92', '§ 92', '§ 74', '§ 15', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 3', '§84', '§ 10', '§ 143', '§ 121', '§ 121', '§ 551', '§ 52', '§ 6', '§ 16']

c. Court – The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
A court suit concerning open meetings law violations is begun the same as any court suit, by filing a complaint and paying the $250 filing fee. There is no provision in court rules for simply running in to a judge to get a ruling on opening a particular meeting without filing a complaint and naming the appropriate people as defendants and serving summons on them. (Note, however, that expedited preliminary proceedings usually occur before the complaint and summons(es) are served on the defendant(s) and before an answer is filed.)
Under both Acts, any person may commence an action in court to stop or to prevent violations or threatened violations of the open meeting laws, to determine the applicability of the Acts to past actions or threatened future actions by the state body or the legislative body of a local agency, to determine whether any rule or action by the state body or legislative body of the local agency to penalize or discourage the expression of its members is legal, or to compel the state body or legislative body of the local agency to tape record its closed sessions. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 11130, 11130.3(a) (Bagley-Keene Act); 54960(a), 54960.2 (Brown Act). Under the Brown Act, a predicate to an action to determine the application of the Act to any past action is a timely cease and desist letter. Cal. Gov’t Code § 54960.2.
(The Bagley-Keene Act was amended in 1999 to supersede the decision by the California Supreme Court in Regents of the Univ. of California v. Superior Court (Molloy), 20 Cal. 4th 509, 976 P.2d 808, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 257 (1999), which held that the Act applies only to present and future violations, but not past ones.)
Additionally, mandamus or injunctive relief is available to declare as null and void action taken in violation of the Brown Act, Sections 54953 (open and public meetings), 54954.2 (posting of agenda), 54954.5 (description requirements for closed sessions), 54954.6 (public meeting in general tax or assessment of notice thereof), 54956 (special meetings and notice thereof), or 54956.5 (emergency meeting rules). Cal. Gov't Code § 54960.1(a). A predicate to such action under the Brown Act is a timely demand to cure or correct the violation. Cal. Gov’t Code § 54960.1(b).
Similarly, mandamus or injunctive relief is available to declare as null and void an action in violation of the Bagley-Keene Act, Sections 11123 (open meetings) and 11125 (notice of meetings). There is no requirement to serve a cure and correct demand letter in advance of suit.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-6-402(9) provides that upon the application of "any citizen" of the State of Colorado, an injunction may be issued by any court of record to enforce the purposes of the Sunshine Law. See Bagby v. School District No. 1, 186 Colo. 428, 528 P.2d 1299 (1974).
An individual denied access to a meeting may appeal to the Superior Court following an adverse ruling by the FOIC.
The meetings portion of the Act contemplates an action in the Court of Chancery. 29 Del. C. § 10005(a). However, in the interest of judicial economy, the Superior Court may entertain certain actions under the Act as well. See Beebe Medical Ctr. v. Certificate of Need Appeals Bd., 1995 WL 465318 (Del. Super. June 30, 1995), aff'd, 676 A.2d 900 (Del. 1996) (TABLE).
The state circuit courts have jurisdiction to enforce the Sunshine Law by injunction or other appropriate remedy. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-12(b). Suits should be commenced in the circuit court of the circuit in which the prohibited act occurred. Id. § 92-12(c).
Any person affected by a violation of the provisions of the Open Meetings Law may commence a civil action in the magistrate division of the district court of the county in which the public agency ordinarily meets, for the purpose of requiring compliance with provisions of the Open Meetings Law. Idaho Code § 74-208(6).
Redress is sought directly in circuit court.
The statute permits lawsuits to be filed in any court of competent jurisdiction in the state. Ind. Code § 15-14-1.5-7(a). There are no administrative remedies to be exhausted. Indeed, the statute explicitly provides that a person or public agency is not required to file a complaint with the Public Access Counselor before seeking judicial remedy. Ind. Code § 5-14-5-4. However, it is advisable to make either a formal complaint or informal inquiry with the counselor, as failure to do so bars collection of attorney fees, with narrow exceptions. Ind. Code § 5-14-1.5-7(f); see Gary/Chicago Airport Bd. of Auth. v. Maclin, 772 N.E.2d 463, 471–72 (Ind. App. 2002) (upholding grant of attorney fees after filing of formal complaint to the Public Access Counselor); Hinojosa v. Hammond Bd. of Pub. Works & Safety, 789 N.E.2d 533, 548–49 (Ind. App. 2003) (because appellant’s suit against the government was necessary to prevent current and further violations of the Indiana Open Door Law, award of attorney fees to appellant under IC 5-14-1.5-7(f) was proper, despite appellant’s failure to obtain an advisory opinion from the public access counselor prior to filing for relief).
The complaining party or the agency has 30 days after the Attorney General renders his or her decision to appeal the decision. Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.846(4)(a). If not timely appealed, the Attorney General's decision "shall have the force and effect of law and shall be enforceable in the Circuit Court of the county where the public agency has its principal place of business or where the alleged violation occurred." Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.846(4)(b).
A complaining party has the option of bypassing the Attorney General and bringing an original action in Circuit Court. A party may not, however, simultaneously seek the Attorney General's review of a complaint while pursuing an action in Circuit Court. In such a case, the Attorney General will refuse to issue an opinion. See 93-OMD-81 ("a person cannot seek relief from this office under Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.846 when the same and additional questions are currently pending before a circuit court").
Court review is available but there are no administrative remedies.
The Act specifically provides for a petition to be filed with the circuit court by a person adversely affected by a public body's failure to comply with the Act. § 3-401(b). A party need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing its complaint. Suburban Hospital Inc. v. Maryland Health Resources Planning Comm'n., 125 Md. App. 579, 600, 726 A.2d 807, 817, n.8 (1999).
"Any citizen of this state" may sue in district court in the county in which the public body meets to seek compliance with Open Meetings Act. Neb. Rev. Stat. §84-1414(3).
Any person may enforce the purpose of the Open Meetings Act by injunction or mandamus or other appropriate order by suit in the District Court. NMSA 1978 § 10-15-3(C).
G.S. § 143-318.16A, which was added to the Open Meetings Law by the General Assembly in 1985, provides that a suit seeking a declaratory judgment under the Open Meetings Law must be filed in Superior Court. In view of the likelihood that suits brought pursuant to the Open Meetings Law are likely to seek both an injunction and a declaratory judgment, suits brought to enforce the Open Meetings Law generally will be filed in Superior Court.
The enforcement of the duties imposed upon public bodies by the statute is through judicial remedies. Those remedies are:
Injunction. Ohio Rev. Code § 121.22(I)(1).
Mandamus. State ex rel. Inskeep v. Staten, 74 Ohio St.3d 676, 660 N.E.2d 1207 (1996). State ex rel. The Fairfield Leader v. Ricketts, 56 Ohio St. 3d 97, 564 N.E.2d 486 (1990).
Invalidation of action taken in or resulting from a session closed in violation of the statute. Ohio Rev. Code § 121.22(H).
A party can file suit in the applicable district court or county court and include with it an application for an injunction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.142. A party can also make an application for a writ of mandamus and file it in the appropriate appellate court, including a court of appeals or the Supreme Court of Texas. Tex. R. App. P. 52.1.
Any person denied access to a meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Act may commence suit “to compel compliance with or enjoin violations of this chapter” or to “determine the chapter’s applicability to discussions or decisions of a public body.” Utah Code § 52-4-303(3).
The only statutory procedure for asserting a right of access under the Open Meetings Act is a petition filed in circuit court pursuant to W. Va. Code §§ 6-9A-3 and 6. It is also possible that one may assert a right of access in a common law mandamus or prohibition proceeding.
Wyo. Stat. § 16-4-203 directs a person denied access to records to apply to the district court of the district where the record is found. Presumably, one seeking access would apply to the district court of the district where the meeting took place.