holding that a party affected by the decision of a public agency to release records pursuant to state Open Records Act had standing to contest the agency decision in court
How later courts described this case
- holding that a party affected by the decision of a public agency to release records pursuant to state Open Records Act had standing to contest the agency decision in court
- stating “[courts]' are not at liberty to add or subtract from the legislative enactment nor discover meaning not reasonably ascertainable from the language used[ ]”
- noting that our duty is to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly and that we are not at liberty to add or subtract language from a statute
- ‘We are not at liberty to add or subtract from the legislative enactment nor discover meaning not reasonably ascertainable from the language used.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STUMBO, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the holding that appellants herein have standing to contest the agency decision. I, however, would take the next step and review on the merits the trial court’s decision requiring disclosure. To do otherwise is to further delay resolution of this matter, which is not in keeping with either the intent of the Kentucky Open Records Act (to provide immediate access to public records) or judicial economy.
LEIBSON and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.