Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton County
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 6, 1996No. Nos. 95-675, 95-677, 95-686 and 95-843PublishedCited by 147 opinions
1Per curiam
These cases involve the disclosure of 911 tapes under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. For the reasons that follow, we hold that 911 tapes in general, as well as the particular 911 tapes requested in these cases, are public records which are not exempt from disclosure.
Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43. State ex rel. Multimedia, Inc. v. Snowden (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 141, 142, 647 N.E.2d 1374, 1377. R.C. 149.43 is construed liberally in favor of broad access, and any doubt is resolved in favor of disclosure of public records. State ex rel. Thomas v.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. James v. Ohio State UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Multimedia Inc. v. SnowdenOhio Supreme Court · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by147 opinions
- Gilbert v. Summit CountyOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- State ex rel. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Board of TrusteesOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-KelleyOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- The STATE EX REL. CORDELL v. PADEN, Sheriff.Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
142 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.