Remington v. City of Boonville

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This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information.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.

---

Remington vs. City of Boonville Number: 701 S.W.2d 804, 806-807 Year: 1985 State: Missouri Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District Other lawsuits in Missouri Other lawsuits in 1985 Precedents include: This case established that Quasi-Judicial bodies are not exempted from the Missouri Sunshine Law for open meetings.

Sunshine Laws

How to Make Records Requests

Sunshine Litigation

Sorted by State, Year and Topic

Sunshine Nuances

Deliberative Process Exemption

Remington v. City of Boonville was a case before the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District in 1985 concerning the applicability of open records laws to private corporations.

Important precedents

This case established that Quasi-Judicial bodies are not exempted from the Missouri Sunshine Law for open meetings.

Background

• The City of Boonville denied a building permit to construct a car wash in Boonville MO. The individuals seeking the permit appealed the decision of the city council to the Board of Adjustment of the City of Boonville.
• The board conducted an open hearing but convened into executive session to deliberate and vote. After deliberations, the board decided to grant the construction permit.
• Remington, and others who are opposed to the construction of the car wash, filed suit alleging that the board use of executive session violated the Sunshine Law. They sought to have the decision of the board declared null and void.
• The trial court ruled in favor of Remington and invalidated the vote.
• The Board appealed the decision, arguing that they were exempt because they were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Ruling of the court

The trial court ruled in favor of Remington and chose to invalidate the action on the part of the board.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court and ordered the decisions overturned. The court determined that the act does not specifically provide for an exemption for quasi-judicial bodies. Furthermore, the act explicitly includes in its definition of public body all quasi-judicial bodies, indicating that it was not an over site but a conscious decision to not include an exemption for those bodies. Based on these factors, the court determined that the Board was in fact not permitted to meet in closed session and invalidated any decisions made during these meetings.

External links

• Ruling of the Court