Courier-Journal v. University of Louisville Foundation
This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunshine Laws |
| How to Make Records Requests |
| Sunshine Litigation |
| Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
| Sunshine Nuances |
| Deliberative Process Exemption |
Courier-Journal v. University of Louisville Foundation was a case before Kentucky Court of Appeals in 2005 concerning the records of charitable donations to a university nonprofit.
Important precedents
This case established that records of donations qualified as exempt under Kentucky's exemption protecting personal privacy found in statute 61.878(1) (a).
Background
- The Courier Journal requested a number of documents relating to donations made by private individuals to the University of Louisville Foundation, a nonprofit wing of the University of Louisville, dedicated to collecting donations.
- The request was denied by the corporation, claiming that the donation records were exempt under Kentucky's exemption for records pertaining to personal privacy found in statute 61.878(1) (a).
- The newspapers filed suit and the trial court ruled in favor of the newspapers. The decision was appealed.
Ruling of the court
The trial court ruled in favor of the newspapers, determining that the University of Louisville Foundation is subject to records requests, and that only those donors who specifically requested anonymity are exempt from records requests.
The Court of Appeals overruled the decision of the trial court and ordered all of the documents in question exempt under the privacy exemption.
The Court of Appeals began by citing Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co. and Zink v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Workers’ Claims, Labor Cabinet which established the balancing system in determining whether personal records should be released under open records requests. The court determined that because the documents did not reveal any spending on the part of the University but merely the actions and decisions of private individuals, the public interest in the documents release was minimal. Further, the private interest in concealing the names, whose release would result in "unwanted attention" was high. Based on this balancing test, the court determined that the records were in fact exempt under the personal privacy exemption, thus overturning the decision of the trial court.
Associated cases
- Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co.
- Zink v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Workers’ Claims, Labor Cabinet
