Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Fant v. Enright

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 5, 1993No. 92-360PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant raises one issue on appeal: whether a person may inspect and copy a “public record,” as defined in R.C. 149.43(A)(1), irrespective of his or her purpose for doing so. We answer in the affirmative and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

The court of appeals held that appellant had not “presented] any proper purpose justifying disclosure pursuant to law.” The idea that a proper purpose is required to obtain a public record derives from our decision in the Wooster Republican case, supra. In that case, we devised a test to balance the requirements of the Privacy Act, R.C.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. National Broadcasting Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. WellsOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  3. State ex rel. Clark v. City of ToledoOhio Supreme Court · 1990

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Gilbert v. Summit CountyOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State ex rel. Steckman v. JacksonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Morgan v. City of New LexingtonOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. State ex rel. Dann v. TaftOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Rhodes v. City of New PhiladelphiaOhio Supreme Court · 2011

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API