Legal Opinion · Dissent
Moore v. Abbott
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided June 17, 2008No. Docket: Cum-07-467Published
1Dissent
LEVY, J.,
with whom MEAD, J., joins, dissenting.
[¶ 22] I respectfully dissent because I believe that the functional equivalency analysis requires us to conclude that the records of the investigatory panel organized by the Attorney General are subject to the Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S. §§ 401-412 (2007).
*986A. Functional Equivalency Analysis
[¶ 23] To determine whether a private entity qualifies as a public agency under the Freedom of Access Act, we employ the four-part functional equivalency test developed by the Connecticut Supreme Court. See Town of Burlington v. Hosp. Admin. Dist. No.1, 2001…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. LaraSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Connecticut Humane Society v. Freedom of Information CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Moffett v. City of PortlandSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- Telford v. Thurston County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
- Town of Burlington v. Hospital Administrative District No. 1Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.