Hallas v. FOIC

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Litigation.png

This WikiFOIA article is a stub. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by expanding this article.

Hallasvs.FOIC
Number: 18 Conn. App. 291, 557 A.2d 568
Year: 1989
State: Connecticut
Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
Other lawsuits in Connecticut
Other lawsuits in 1989
Precedents include:
This case affirmed the decision of Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOIC and emphasized that all 4 points must be met for an organization to be considered a public body.
WikiFOIA
Find your State
Sunshine Laws
Open Records laws
Open Meetings Laws
How to Make Records Requests
Sunshine Legislation
2010
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Litigation
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Nuances
Private Agencies, Public Dollars
Deliberative Process Exemption


Hallas v. FOIC was a case before the Connecticut Court of Appeals in 1989 concerning the applicability of open records law to individuals contracted by public agencies.

Important precedents

This case affirmed the decision of Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOIC and emphasized that all 4 points must be met for an organization to be considered a public body.[1]

Background

  • Robinson and Cole is a law firm located in the city of Hartford. They have acted as the bonds counsel for the town of Windsor since 1967.
  • On February 12, 1985, Hallas submitted a records request to the firm seeking to inspect documents relating to bonds issued by the city between 1966-1983.
  • The firm denied the request, claiming, "(1) certain documents were protected from disclosure because of the attorney-client privilege, (2) the firm was not the proper place to make their request, and (3) the documents were not public records."
  • The Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission and the trial court ruled in favor of the firm.
  • Hallas appealed the decisions.[1]

Ruling of the court

The Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission and the trial court ruled in favor of the law firm, finding that it did not meet the four part test established by Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOIC.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, granting judgment in favor of the law firm. The court cited Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOIC, stating that any organization must meet all four criteria in order to be considered a public body under the law. The court went on to find that the law firm was not in any way regulated more heavily due to its duties than any other state law firm. Thus, the firm failed one portion of the test and could not be considered a public body.[1]

Associated cases

See also

External links

References