Skip to main content

Gray Media Grp., Inc. v. Town of Matthews

N.C. Ct. App.March 4, 2026No. 25-332
UnresolvableTown of Matthews

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Summary judgment proceeding involving public records request regarding city employee personnel records under N.C.G.S. 160A-168, with in camera inspection conducted to determine if interests of justice require disclosure.

Excerpt

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)

Similar Rulings

Brown-Austin
OHIOCTCLNov 2025

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 Code 5120-9-31(H); A public records request is superseded by a subsequent request that modifies the original request; Grievance records are exempted from the class of public records by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) and Adm.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).

Unresolvable
DeCrane
OHIOCTCLAug 2018

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.

Mixed Result
Parks
OHIOCTCLApr 2018

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.

Plaintiff Win
J. Daniels v. Adams County Clerk of Courts (OOR)
Pa. Commw. Ct.Dec 2024
Unresolvable
In re: A.C.
N.C. Ct. App.Apr 2026

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.