CASE CITATION | CATEGORY | HOLDING |
Kansas City Star Company v. Shields, 771 S.W.2d 101 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989) | Open Meetings | Budget Committee’s luncheon meeting with City Budget Officer and City Manager subject to public notice requirements of the Missouri Sunshine Law. |
Charlier v. Corum, 774 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989) | Public Governmental Body | Sheriff is an administrative entity created by state statute and is, therefore, subject to Missouri Sunshine Law. |
Librach v. Cooper, 778 S.W.2d 351 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989) | Public Records Exemption | Severance Agreement between Superintendent and Public School District is Public Record subject to Public Inspection. |
Defino v. Civic Center Corp., 780 S.W.2d 665 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989) | Open Meetings | Constituent meeting with less than a quorum of the Board of Aldermen was not subject to public notice and open meeting requirements of the Missouri Sunshine Law. |
Fitzgerald v. City of Maryland Heights, 796 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990) | Open Meetings Remedy | City Council’s failure to comply with public notice requirements of the Missouri Sunshine Law did not excuse Mayor’s refusal to comply with directive adopted by the City Council in a meeting where the Mayor was present. |
Missouri Protection& Advocacy Services v. Allan, 787 S.W.2d 291 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990) | Public Record | Preliminary draft report prepared by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs in possession of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is a public record. |
Charlier v. Corum, 794 S.W.2d 676 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990) | Remedy | Sheriff’s good faith belief and reliance upon advice of legal counsel are not defenses to purposeful violation of Missouri Sunshine Law. |
City of St. Louis v. City of Bridgeton, 806 S.W.2d 717 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) | Public Records Exemption | City purchasing contiguous parcels in a single subdivision may close records relating to sales price of parcels until all of the parcels have been acquired. |
Paskon v. Salem Memorial Hospital District, 806 S.W.2d 417 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991) | Public Records Exemption | Physician accorded privileges at public hospital and paid an hourly wage was public employee under the Missouri Sunshine Law. |
Wolfskill v. Henderson, 823 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) | Public Records Exemption | Police Department’s internal investigative files relating to discipline of public employee are closed records. |
Pultizer Publishing Co. v. Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System, 927 S.W.2d 477 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) | Public Records Exemption | Pension system may not close public records absent express statutory authority set forth in Missouri Sunshine Law. |
Deaton v. Kidd, 932 S.W.2d 804 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) | Public Records | Government entity may not restrict public access to records by selling exclusive rights to computer tapes of public records to bidder. |
Colombo v. Buford, 935 S.W.2d 690 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) | Statute of Limitations | Lawsuit must be filed within 6 months after questionable meeting was discovered or when it could have been ascertained. A member of governmental body is not a governmental body. |
City of Springfield v. Events Publishing Co., 951 S.W.2d 366 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997) | Public Records Exemption Remedy | Names and addresses of utility customers are public records, unless a customer has requested confidentiality. Government entity filing declaratory judgment responsible for prevailing party’s attorney’s fees. |
News-Press and Gazette Co. v. Cathcart, 974 S.W.2d 576 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) | Public Governmental Body | Coroner is public governmental body. Autopsy report used in active investigation is a closed record. |
Spradlin v. City of Fulton, 982 S.W.2d 255 (Mo.banc 1998) | Open Meeting Remedy | City’s closed meeting discussions violated open meetings provision of Missouri Sunshine Law. City held not liable for attorney’s fees absent evidence of purposeful violation. |
Smith v. Sheriff, 982 S.W.2d 775 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) | Closed Meeting | School District’s closed meeting regarding rehiring of teacher was not converted to open meeting by attendance of third-party witnesses. |
North Kansas City Hospital Board of Trustees v. St. Luke’s Northland Hospital, 984 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) | Public Governmental Body | Non-profit corporation formed to carryout purposes of municipal hospital was a quasi-public governmental body subject to the Missouri Sunshine Law. |
Hemeyer v. KRCG-TV, 6 S.W.3d 880 (Mo.banc 1999) | Public Record Remedy | Booking security videotape is a public record. City is responsible for reasonable attorney’s fees – even though it filed a declaratory judgment action. |
SNL Securities, L.C. v. National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 23 S.W.3d 734 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) | Public Governmental Body | National association of chief insurance regulators is not a quasi-governmental body and is not subject to the Missouri Sunshine Law. |
Guyer v. City of Kirkwood, 38 S.W.3d 412 (Mo.banc 2001) | Public Records | Complaint alleging police misconduct is an incident report and investigative report and can only be closed under Sec. 610,100 and may not be closed under Sec. 610.021(3) or (13). |
Calvert v. Mehlville R-IX School District, 44 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) | Public Record | Vote to approve settlement agreement with former teacher is public record. School District is not liable for breach of confidentiality agreement when School District disclosed its existence. |
Stewart v. Williams Communications, Inc., 85 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) | Public Governmental Body | Private, for-profit utility company with power of eminent domain is not a quasi-governmental entity. |
Anderson v. Village of Jacksonville, 103 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) | Public Records Request | Public records request must identify public records with reasonable specificity. |
State ex rel. Moore v. Brewster, 116. S.W.3d 630 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) | Public Record Remedy | Report of alleged misconduct by school board members was legal work product and was a closed record. Attorney’s fees awarded for failure to appoint custodian of records. |
Case Law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)