# Town of Burlington v. Hospital Administrative District No. 1

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · April 12, 2001 · 769 A.2d 857

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752254

## Case

- **Full name:** TOWN OF BURLINGTON v. HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT NO. 1 Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** April 12, 2001
- **Citations:** 769 A.2d 857; 2001 ME 59; 2001 Me. LEXIS 61
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Alexander
- **Judges:** Wathen, Clifford, Rudman, Dana, Saufley, Alexander, Calkins
- **Cited by:** 45 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752254

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating a court should endeavor to resolve controversies before it "without deciding constitutional issues, reaching such an issue only if it is entirely necessary to a decision on the cause in which it is raised" (quotation marks omitted)
- affirming the trial court’s finding that compensation information was not a trade secret when “employees ... receiving the compensation [were] under no duty to keep the Information secret”

## Opinion text

ALEXANDER, J.,
concurring.
[¶ 23] I concur that the Freedom of Access Act should be broadly construed to allow access to all documents relating to public contracts that are within a public agency’s possession and control, unless subject to an exemption in the law. However, I want to emphasize that by contracting with a public agency, a private contractor does not open all of its private documents, not shared with the public agency, to public access. If the Quorum compensation records are shared with or approved by HAD # 1, they are public records; but if they are private to Quorum and its employees, and are not disclosed to HAD # 1, they would not be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Access Act, absent the stipulation noted in footnote 12 of the Court’s opinion or the special provisions of section 10-A.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752254. Public record. Not legal advice.