Court authority in reviewing action denying right to inspect public records
- docketing
- costs and attorney fees
Source:
Section 192.431 — Court authority in reviewing action denying right to inspect public records; docketing; costs and attorney fees, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors192.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Where plaintiff obtained alternative writ of mandamus compelling defendants to produce public documents district attorney had ordered defendants to disclose under Public Records Law, plaintiff was not entitled to costs, disbursements or attorney fees because mandamus under ORS 34.110 is not proceeding for injunctive or declaratory relief under this section. State ex rel Oregon Television, Inc. v. Prophet, 97 Or App 525, 776 P2d 592 (1989)
This section does not support award of attorney fees against private party that intervened to defend public body’s refusal to disclose record. Western Communications, Inc. v. Deschutes County, 100 Or App 706, 788 P2d 1013 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Where plaintiff publishing company prevailed in suit by establishing that school district’s policy exempting public records from disclosure is unenforceable, plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal. Guard Publishing Co. v. Lane County School Dist., 310 Or 32, 791 P2d 854 (1990)
When, instead of complying with procedures stated in this provision for either complying with or challenging order to disclose public records, public body filed petition for review of case raising some of same issues in present case, trial court erred in denying attorney fees to plaintiff. Davis v. Walker, 108 Or App 128, 814 P2d 547 (1991)
Good faith of party failing to comply with Attorney General order is irrelevant to award of attorney fees and costs. Gray v. Salem-Keizer School District, 139 Or App 556, 912 P2d 938 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Failure of public body to provide Attorney General or district attorney with statement of reasons for believing public record should not be disclosed does not prevent public body from asserting disclosure exemption in action for declaratory or injunctive relief. In Defense of Animals v. OHSU, 199 Or App 160, 112 P3d 336 (2005)
Circuit court has authority to review reasonableness of public body fees. In Defense of Animals v. OHSU, 199 Or App 160, 112 P3d 336 (2005)
Failure to comply with Attorney General’s order “in full” refers only to noncompliance with Attorney General’s order to disclose record to petitioner under [former] ORS 192.450. Klamath County School District v. Teamey, 207 Or App 250, 140 P3d 1152 (2006), Sup Ct review denied
“Attorney fees” means reasonable value of services performed by attorney, including services performed by attorney who acted pro se. Colby v. Gunson, 349 Or 1, 238 P3d 374 (2010)
Where public body did not possess or control public records at time of receipt of public records request, public body did not “improperly withhold” requested records. Upham v. Forster, 316 Or App 357, 504 P3d 654 (2021)