Sunshine Law violation in Missouri

2025If the court finds the violation was purposeful, § 610.027.4 permits a civil penalty of up to five thousand dollars, plus costs and attorney’s fees. 6 Where the basis for a Sunshine Law claim is a public governmental body’s failure to respond to a records request, the petition must allege “that (1) a request for access to a public record was made; (2) such request was received by the custodian of records; and (3) the custodian of records did not respond to the request within three business days of receiving the request.” Anderson v. Vill. of Jacksonville, 103 S.W.3d 190, 194-95 (Mo. App. W.D.

2025If the court finds the violation was purposeful, § 610.027.4 permits a civil penalty of up to five thousand dollars, plus costs and attorney’s fees. 6 Where the basis for a Sunshine Law claim is a public governmental body’s failure to respond to a records request, the petition must allege “that (1) a request for access to a public record was made; (2) such request was received by the custodian of records; and (3) the custodian of records did not respond to the request within three business days of receiving the request.” Anderson v. Vill. of Jacksonville, 103 S.W.3d 190, 194-95 (Mo. App. W.D.

2023Spradlin v. City of Fulton, 982 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Mo. banc 1998) (holding the government bears the burden of establishing that the record “relates directly” to the sunshine law exception).

2016Second, even when a public governmental body acts with great diligence and utmost good faith, Sunshine Law violations still may occur, when the governmental body makes a mistake of fact (e.g., it does not know that a particular record has been requested or is not being produced) or a mistake of law (e.g., it fails to understand that the Sunshine Law requires disclosure in the circumstances at hand). ■ The General Assembly struck that balance-in 1982 by providing that the circuit court may award attorney’s fees only when the defendant “purposely” violates the Sunshine Law. §■ 610.027.3, RSMo Su

2025Like the LEOBOR, the Sunshine Law provides that “[a]ny aggrieved person . . . may seek judicial enforcement” of its requirements, that the court may “void any action taken in violation” of its requirements, and that the suit for enforcement “shall be brought within one year from which the violation is ascertainable.” Compare sections 590.502.9-10 with sections 610.027.1 and 610.027.5 RSMo (2016).4 In Missouri Landowners All. v. Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC, 561 S.W.3d 39, 46-47 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018), the court held that a Sunshine Law violation is ascertainable when it “could have been dis

2025Like the LEOBOR, the Sunshine Law provides that “[a]ny aggrieved person . . . may seek judicial enforcement” of its requirements, that the court may “void any action taken in violation” of its requirements, and that the suit for enforcement “shall be brought within one year from which the violation is ascertainable.” Compare sections 590.502.9-10 with sections 610.027.1 and 610.027.5 RSMo (2016).4 In Missouri Landowners All. v. Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC, 561 S.W.3d 39, 46-47 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018), the court held that a Sunshine Law violation is ascertainable when it “could have been dis

2024See CIBC Bank USA, 669 S.W.3d at 304 (internal quotation omitted); Avery, 492 S.W.3d at 162 (internal citation omitted).

2024See Thomas v. Denney, 453 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (quoting §§ 217.175, .370 (noting “[t]he division directors shall make such rules, regulations and orders as are proper and necessary for the management of the correctional centers and programs under their control” and “[t]he director . . . shall establish an offender grievance procedure”)). 6 Conclusion Under this record, Appellant failed to allege pursuant to the PLRA that he had either: (1) exhausted his administrative remedies or (2) was not required to exhaust such remedies prior to filing his Sunshine Law claim in circuit cou

2023These particular claims address issues that the circuit court could have found in favor of the City, despite the court concluding that Sections 610.021(3) and (13) permit closure of the Walters Letter. 21 The City contends that the fact the Department supplied no evidence to support these exceptions, and later abandoned them, proves a knowing Sunshine Law violation.13 “Section 610.027 allows any aggrieved person to seek judicial enforcement of the Sunshine Law and provides the remedies of civil monetary penalties, costs and attorney’s fees for knowing or purposeful violations of that law.” Lau

2022The attorneys representing the respondents in this proceeding are well known to this Court to have a special expertise with labor law and Sunshine Law issues and that expertise was appropriately documented in substantial evidence presented to the trial court below. 12 v. Mokwa, 466 S.W.3d 571, 584 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015)).

2019Co. v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 799 S.W.2d 78, 79 (Mo. banc 1990) (“Had the legislature intended that interest accrue on the full amount of the overpayment, it would have said so.”); Frye v. Levy, 440 S.W.3d 405, 412 (Mo. banc 2014) (“If the legislature intended for the grant of investigative authority … to be contingent on compliance with the [statutory] deadlines … it would have said so.”). 13 law, however; it simply determines the extent of the circuit court’s discretion in remedying an established sunshine law violation.

2019See Gibson, 952 S.W.2d at 244 ; see also Jones 118 S.W.3d at 676 (Rule 74.01(b) cannot be invoked by the trial court in action brought to gain access to records under the Sunshine Law where claim for attorney fees under section 610.027 is still pending).

2019The School District’s request for the imposition of statutory penalties and an award of attorney fees and costs is “part of a single claim for violation of the Missouri Sunshine Law.” See Jones, 118 S.W.3d at 675 .

2019See Gibson, 952 S.W.2d at 244 ; see also Jones 118 S.W.3d at 676 (Rule 74.01(b) cannot be invoked by the trial court in action brought to gain access to records under the Sunshine Law where claim for attorney fees under section 610.027 is still pending).

2019Co. v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 799 S.W.2d 78, 79 (Mo. banc 1990) (“Had the legislature intended that interest accrue on the full amount of the overpayment, it would have said so.”); Frye v. Levy, 440 S.W.3d 405, 412 (Mo. banc 2014) (“If the legislature intended for the grant of investigative authority … to be contingent on compliance with the [statutory] deadlines … it would have said so.”). 13 law, however; it simply determines the extent of the circuit court’s discretion in remedying an established sunshine law violation.