Legal Opinion

Robert Burks, Respondent/Cross-appellant v. Metropolitan Council, Appellant/Cross-respondent.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 24, 2016No. A14-1651PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

STRAS, Justice,.

This case requires us to determine whether, under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (“Data Practices Act”), a Metro Transit passenger has the right to access a video recording in Metro Transit’s possession that depicts the passenger. See Minn.Stat. §§ 13.01-.90 (2014). The passenger in question, Robert Burks, requested access to the recording of an exchange he had with a Metro Transit bus driver.' After Metro Transit, a division of Metropolitan Council, denied Burks’s request, he filed a complaint in district court. The district court granted relief to Burks,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet TahoeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
  2. State v. HohenwaldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  3. Wiegel v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  4. KSTP-TV v. Metropolitan CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
  5. In the Matter of: KSTP-TV v. Metro Transit, Below, Metropolitan Council, Relator.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. KSTP-TV v. Metropolitan CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
  2. Troy K. Scheffler v. City of Anoka, City of Coon Rapids, Hicken, Scott, Howard & Anderson, P. A.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API