Court Opinion

ID: 9684774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:11:31.958504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:59.381486
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). Relator’s brief, in support of his motion for rehearing, points out that prior to enactment of sec. 18.01, Stats., in 1917 as part of a revisor’s bill there existed certain statutes which authorized inspection of certain public records.1 There are many statutes that impose upon particular public officers the duty to keep certain records which evidence an express or implied legislative intent that such records be open to public inspection. With respect to public records of this category the common-law rule applied in the instant case would be inapplicable, and consequently the officer custodian thereof would have no right to refuse public inspection.
Except for this qualification of the original opinion, which does not affect the determination of the instant case, we are not persuaded that any further change should be made therein. The motion for rehearing is, therefore, denied without costs.

 Those cited are secs. 138, 141 (5), 142, 186, 768 (3), 832 (9), 880 (5), Stats. 1915.