Lawson v. Office of the Attorney General
Kentucky Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partScott, J.
Although I concur in the majority’s conclusions that KRS 61.878(l)(h)10 and KRS 17.150(2) are not applicable, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s Opinion in regard to its analysis and result under KRS 61.878(1). I do so because I believe the majority justifies trumping Appellant Lawson’s acknowledged privacy interest by asserting an illusory public interest in actions taken by the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Transportation in 1983 under then Governor John Y. Brown’s administration, some thirty years ago. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the PressSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Sussman v. United States Marshals ServiceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2007
- Alan L. Fitzgibbon v. Central Intelligence Agency Alan L. Fitzgibbon v. Central Intelligence AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
- American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of JusticeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2011
- Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1992
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.