Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/5-pleading-format-c-court-review-of-administrative-decision/
Timestamp: 2019-02-23 00:41:05
Document Index: 572157307

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 25', '§ 24', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 16', '§ 16']

5. Pleading format – The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Pleadings must be in the format generally prescribed for civil litigation in the Alaska Court System.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The complaint filed with the district court should be captioned as required by Rule 10 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. (For example, the caption should include the plaintiff’s name, address, and telephone number or the name, address, and telephone number of the plaintiff’s attorney; should indicate the names of the plaintiffs and the defendant (i.e., the agency or the public body being sued); and should indicate that the pleading is a complaint). The allegations in the complaint should, at a minimum, include the following:
(1) the name of the person or organization challenging the violation of the Open Meetings Act;
(2) the name of the public body that allegedly violated or proposes to violate the Open Meetings Act;
(3) a statement of the court’s jurisdiction over the matter (e.g., the meeting occurred in the county over which the court has jurisdiction);
(4) the date, time, and location of the challenged meeting;
(5) the members of the public body who attended the meeting, if known;
(6) the matters discussed at the meeting, if known;
(7) the reasons, if any, given for the public body’s closure of the meeting;
(8) the facts indicating that the entity holding the meeting is a “public body” as defined in the Open Meetings Act;
(9) the facts indicating that the meeting to which the plaintiff was denied access was a “meeting” as defined by the Open Meetings Act;
(10) the facts indicating that there was a quorum of the public body present at the meeting;
(11) a statement that the meeting was not a “chance meeting” or “social meeting”;
(12) a statement, if applicable, that the public body failed to approve the closing of the meeting by a two-thirds vote of the members of the public body;
(13) a statement that the topics discussed at the meeting were not included in the list of exempt topics set forth in Utah Code section 52-4-205;
(14) a statement, if applicable, that the public body failed to give adequate notice of the meeting;
(15) a statement, if applicable, that the public body failed to keep adequate minutes of the meeting;
(16) a statement of the relief sought from the court (e.g., an order declaring that action taken at the meeting is void; an order to compel compliance with, or to enjoin violations of, the Open Meetings Act; or a declaratory judgment on the applicability of the Open Meetings Act to the discussions or decisions of the public body at the meeting);
(17) a statement of the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain access to the meetings; and
(18) a request for reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs and such other just and equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.
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.