Opinion

State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel

  • 62 Ohio St. 3d 455
  • 584 N.E.2d 664
  • 1992 Ohio LEXIS 126
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 5, 1992
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
Cited by
12 cases
Authority
More cited than 86.8%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

For the purposes of the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.011 defines “records” as including:

“ * * * any document, device, or item, regardless of physical form or characteristic, created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any public office of the state or its political subdivisions, which serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office.”

The information sought by appellant is not a document, device, or item, as required by this definition; therefore, it is not a record. Since the information in question is not a record, it is not a public record subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43. Moreover, the Public Records Act does not compel appellee to *456 create a new document to satisfy appellant’s demands. State, ex rel. Scanlon, v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376, 379 , 544 N.E.2d 680, 683 .

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.