Union Leader Corporation v. NH Housing Finance Authority
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This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information.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.
 |
This Open Records and Transparency Project article is a sprout. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by expanding this article. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunshine Laws |
| How to Make Records Requests |
| Sunshine Litigation |
| Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
| Sunshine Nuances |
| Deliberative Process Exemption |
Union Leader Corporation v. NH Housing Finance Authority was a case before the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1997 concerning the application of open records laws to nonprofits.
Important precedents
This case established that private corporations who serve a clear public function are subject to the New Hampshire Right to Know Law.[1]
Background
- In March and April 1995 the Union Leader newspaper submitted a number of records requests to the NH Housing Finance Authority for records relating to two housing developments that had been partially financed by the authority.
- The housing authority rejected the request claiming that it was exempt under the New Hampshire Right to Know Law.
- The newspaper filed suit seeking to compel the authority to disclose the documents. The trial court ordered the authority to produce an index of the requested records, pursuant to Vaughn v. Rosen. When the Authority failed to produce an adequate index after repeated orders, the trial court filed a summary judgment in favor of the newspapers and ordered the documents released.
- The Authority appealed the decision.[1]
Ruling of the court
The trial court delivered a summary judgment in favor of the newspaper, due to the Authorities failure to produce a detailed index of the records being requested for in camera inspection.
The Supreme Court delivered a split decision affirming in part and reversing in part. The court first affirmed the decision of the trial court with regard to whether or not the housing authority was a public body. It determined that the agency is a public body as it provides an essential government function of dispensing funds so as to provide for housing for the citizens within its jurisdiction. The court went on to reject the Housing Authorities contention that the trial court erred in rejecting their index and ordering summary disclosure. The Supreme Court analyzed the index and found that it did not meet the appropriate standards. The court further decided that the trial court was within its bounds to issue a summary disclosure based on the Authorities failure to defend its claimed exemptions. Finally the court went on to determine that the public interest in the workings of the authority outweighed any privacy interest in disclosure and ordered all the documents reviewed in camera disclosed. This order overturned 4 of the decisions of the trial court and affirmed the remainder ordering the release of all the documents sought by the newspapers.[1]
Associated cases
See also
External links
Footnotes
