Laramie River Conservation Council v. Dinger
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This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information.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 |
Laramie River Conservation Council v. Dinger was a case before the Wyoming Supreme Court in 1977.
Important precedents
This case established that the exemption for inter-office memoranda found in Wyoming Public Records Act § 9-692.3(b)(v) was to be narrowly construed so as to prevent the concealment of documents by merely calling them "memoranda."
Background
- The Laramie River Conservation Council(LRCC) filed an open records request for the transcript of a series of public meetings held on April 9 and 10, 1976 at which the Office of Industrial Siting Administration (OISA) debated a permit for the construction of aspects of a new power plant submitted on December 12, 1975. All meetings concerning the construction permit were to be held in the open pursuant to Wyoming law.
- Dinger, the director of OISA, denied the request. LRCC submitted the request again on May 4, 1976 and Dinger again denied the request on May 8, 1976 claiming that the document was exempt as an inter-agency memorandum and that the release was against the public interest pursuant to Wyoming Public Records Act § 9-692.3(b)(v).
- LRCC filed suit in Laramie County District Court, seeking to compel the office to release the documents.
- The district court ruled in favor of the office and the LRCC appealed the decision.[1]
Ruling of the court
The district court ruled in favor of the Office and Dinger, claiming that as an inter-agency memorandum, the document was exempt from records request.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of the Council, ordering the release of the document.
The court ruled that the states emphasis on disclosure over secrecy eliminated the possibility that a "showing of need" was required to justify a public records request[1]. The court also rejected Dinger's claim that the document was a memorandum, stating that "Merely putting something into a bundle of paper, labeled a "memorandum," does not make it so"[1]. In addition, the court determined that Dinger's claim that release was against public interest had no ground for two reasons. First and foremost, the court established that the hearing in question was over a highly disputed permit, in which the public was very interested. Secondly, embarrassment felt by the office members over their statements on the recording could not justify its exemption, as the officers choose to enter the public light by serving within OISA. Finally, the court determined that the document fell not only under the Wyoming Public Records Act's compulsion to release, but also the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act which established the bylaws of the OISA. Based on all of these facts, the court ordered that the documents were not exempt and ordered their release.[1]
