J. Daniels v. Adams County Clerk of Courts (OOR)
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Cohn Jubelirer
- Status
- Unpublished
- Procedural Posture
- Office of Open Records proceeding
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Office of Open Records (OOR) proceeding regarding Adams County Clerk of Courts; outcome and merits not determinable from case caption alone.
Similar Rulings
Public Records Act; Public Records Request; In Camera Inspection; Summary Judgment; City Employee Personnel Records; Confidential; N.C.G.S. 160A-168(c)(4); Independent Determination that the Interests of Justice Require; N.C.G.S. 160A-168(c1)(2)
Public Records; R.C. 149.43(B)(1); R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v); Adm. Code 5120-9-31(H); A public records request is superseded by a subsequent request that modifies the original request; Grievance records are exempted from the class of public records by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) and Adm. Code. 5120-9-31(H); Kites are not grievance records within the meaning of Adm. Code. 5120-9-31(H).
Core Terms: public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43(B) moot ambiguous overly broad. Overview: Requester sought records of a division of fire employee, division drug-testing policy, and "all correspondence from the [division's] drug-testing contractor" for a two-month period. The City asserted that it had provided all records responsive to the first two requests, and that the third request was improperly ambiguous and overly broad. The Special Master recommended that the court find the first two requests were moot, and that the third claim was properly denied as both ambiguous and overly broad.
Core Terms: public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43 R.C. 9.01 format metadata. Overview: Requester sought draft meeting minutes in the format they were kept at the time of the request. Respondent stated it had no duty to provide a document that could be edited, and produced the record in PDF format that was both less functional and contained less or different metadata. The special master recommended that the court order respondent to provide the record in the format in which it was kept. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's report and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.