PGI logo cropped.png
Congressional Millionaire’s Club
The Personal Gain Index shines a light on how members of Congress benefit during their tenure.





Scott v. Smith

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.

Scottvs.Smith
Number: 728 S.W.2d 515, 292 Ark. 174
Year: 1987
State: Arkansas
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Other lawsuits in Arkansas
Other lawsuits in 1987
Precedents include:
This case affirmed the decision in, Laman v. McCord, namely, that there is no attorney-client privilege exemption within the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. This case also held that the deliberative process exemption for the Attorney General did not extend to all lawyers representing state agencies.[1]
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


Scott v. Smith was a case before the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1987 concerning the deliberative process exemption.

Important precedents

This case affirmed the decision in, Laman v. McCord, namely, that there is no attorney-client privilege exemption within the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. This case also held that the deliberative process exemption for the Attorney General did not extend to all lawyers representing state agencies.[1]

Background

  • Griffin Smith submitted a records request to Ray Scott in his capacity as director of Arkansas Department of Human Services for a number of documents.
  • The Department released most of the documents but withheld documents of the agencies legal counsel and documents which had been submitted to the Office of the Attorney General.
  • Smith filed suit and the trial court ruled in his favor ordering the documents released.
  • The Department appealed the decision.[1]

Ruling of the court

The trial court ruled in favor of Smith and ordered that the documents generated by the Departments' general counsel are subject to the state FOIA law and should be released. However, the documents produced by the assistant attorney general are exempt.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Citing Laman v. McCord, the trial court established that the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act does not contain an exemption for the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege, the court held, is an aspect of trials and the rules of discovery and has no sway within FOIA. Based on this determination, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court and ordered the release of the documents.[1]

Associated cases

See also

External links

References