First Commerce Title Co. Inc. v. Martin: Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "<table>↵{{Open Records and Transparency Project (Sunshine Review)}}" to "</table> {{Open Records and Transparency Project (Sunshine Review)}}") |
m (Text replacement - "* Louisiana Public Records Act" to "") |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Latest revision as of 05:06, 27 June 2025
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This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information.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 |
First Commerce Title Co. Inc. v. Martin was a case before the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal in 2005 concerning the means of copying public records.
Important precedents
This established that individuals have a right to use personal photocopying equipment to copy records within an agencies office, so long as the do not "place" or "install" the equipment.
Background
- In August 2001, an employee of First Commerce Title Company used a hand-held scanner to copy images of documents within the Bienville Parish Courthouse in Arcadia, Louisiana. The clerk of court told the employee he could not use the scanner within the office, pursuant to R.S. 44:32, “which prohibits the use of imaging equipment by others in the Clerk’s Offices”[1]. The section in fact permits the clerk to prohibit the "placement" or "installation" of privately owned copying equipment.
- In November 2001, First Commerce filed suit in circuit court, seeking to have R.S. 44:32 ruled as unconstitutional and seeking to compel the Parish Courthouse to permit them to use the scanners free of charge.
- The district court ruled in favor of the parish courthouse and First Commerce appealed the decision.[1]
Ruling of the court
The district court ruled in favor of the courthouse, stating that the hand held scanners fell under R.S. 44:32 and were thus not permitted in the courthouse.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, ruling in favor of First Commerce.
The Court of Appeals determined that a hand held scanner could be used in an office without it being "placed" or "installed" in that office. Further, the court felt that the policy of openness supported this interpretation of the law. The court finally determined that First Commerce had a right to attorney fees and awarded them accordingly.[1]
