Grand Forks Herald v. Lyons
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This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information.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 |
Grand Forks Herald v. Lyons was a case before the North Dakota Supreme Court in 1960 concerning the definition of public agency.
Important precedents
This case established a number of precedents:
- This case exempted the records of the court from the North Dakota Open Records Statute.
- This case established the definition of agency to be, "a relation created by law or contract whereby one party delegates the transaction of some lawful business to another."[1]
Background
- The Grand Forks Herald filed a public records request under the North Dakota Open Records Statute for all records of the Grand Forks county court, including "every order affecting a substantial right or directing the performance of a duty, every final order or decree, all wills which are admitted to probate, all bonds of executors, administrators, guardians, and surviving partners of deceased persons which are accepted and approved, and all letters issued to executors, administrators, and guardians" as well as marriage licenses and applications.[1]
- The court rejected the request, claiming that the North Dakota Open Records Statute did not apply to the courts because the courts already had rules established in law prior to the passage of the act which permitted the inspection of court records where the persons had direct business with the records at hand.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the county court and ordered the documents exempt.
- The newspaper appealed the decision.
Ruling of the court
The trial court ruled in favor of the courts, determining that because the open records statutes did not repeal the previous records statutes relating to the courts, the new statutes were not meant to include the court system.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, but arrived at that determination through a different argument. The Supreme Court determined that the records in question were not subject to the open records statutes because the court system did not fall under the definition of public body found within the law. The court felt that the legislatures decision not to include the courts in the concrete wording of the definition indicates a clear leaning towards considering the courts as exempt from the public records statute. Further, the court rejected the contention that the courts were an agency of the state, defining agency instead as "a relation created by law or contract whereby one party delegates the transaction of some lawful business to another."[1] The court defended this exemption, claiming that the legislature, "did not intend to extend to the public the right to pry into or meddle with the private matters of persons who have business in the county court."[1] The court did however decide that the open records statute did apply to marriage license records as they were not mentioned in the old law and were not proceedings or functions of the court but a function delegated to the courts by the county. The court went on to determine that the newspapers business of gathering news did not constitute business with the courts. Based on these decisions the court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and ordered the records exempted.
Associated cases
See also
External links
Footnotes
| North Dakota sunshine lawsuits | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
