Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(21.1) (A) Records of the Department of Human Services concerning any foster parent or former foster parent that reveal his or her home address, home telephone number, day and month of birth, social security number, insurance or medical information, mother's birth name, credit card information, debit card information, bank account information, account number, utility account number, password used to access his or her account, financial data or information other than compensation by a government agency, or unlisted telephone number if so designated in a public record or that reveal the identity of his or her immediate family members or dependents.
(25.1) School safety plans prepared pursuant to Code Section 20-2-1185, whether in the possession of a local school system, a local law enforcement agency, a local emergency management agency, the Department of Education, the Georgia Emergency Management and Homeland Security Agency, or any other public entity;
(26.1) In addition to the exemption provided by paragraph (26) of this subsection, audio recordings of a 9-1-1 telephone call to a public safety answering point which contain the speech in distress or cries in extremis of a caller who died during the call or the speech or cries of a person who was a minor at the time of the call, except to the following, provided that the person seeking the audio recording of a 9-1-1 telephone call submits a sworn affidavit that attests to the facts necessary to establish eligibility under this paragraph:
(26.2) Audio and video recordings from devices used by law enforcement officers in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when there is no pending investigation, except to the following, provided that the person seeking the audio or video recording submits a sworn affidavit that attests to the facts necessary to establish eligibility under this paragraph:
(Ga. L. 1967, p. 455, § 1; Ga. L. 1970, p. 163, § 1; Code 1981, §50-18-72, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 1789, § 1; Ga. L. 1986, p. 1090, § 2; Ga. L. 1987, p. 377, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 13, § 50; Ga. L. 1988, p. 243, § 3; Ga. L. 1989, p. 553, § 2; Ga. L. 1989, p. 827, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 341, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 1061, § 8; Ga. L. 1993, p. 968, § 1; Ga. L. 1993, p. 1336, § 1; Ga. L. 1993, p. 1669, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 704, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 6, § 50; Ga. L. 1997, p. 1052, § 2; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1652, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 552, §§ 4, 4.1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 809, §§ 4, 5; Ga. L. 1999, p. 1222, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 2000, p. 136, § 50; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1556, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 2001, p. 4, § 50; Ga. L. 2001, p. 327, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 331, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 491, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 820, § 13; Ga. L. 2002, p. 415, § 50; Ga. L. 2003, p. 602, § 1; Ga. L. 2003, p. 880, § 2; Ga. L. 2004, p. 107, § 22; Ga. L. 2004, p. 161, § 15; Ga. L. 2004, p. 341, § 1A; Ga. L. 2004, p. 410, § 9; Ga. L. 2004, p. 770, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 334, § 30-2/HB 501; Ga. L. 2005, p. 558, § 1/HB 437; Ga. L. 2005, p. 595, § 1/SB 121; Ga. L. 2005, p. 660, § 11/HB 470; Ga. L. 2005, p. 1133, § 1/HB 340; Ga. L. 2006, p. 72, § 50/SB 465; Ga. L. 2006, p. 536, § 1/HB 955; Ga. L. 2007, p. 87, § 1/SB 212; Ga. L. 2007, p. 160, § 1/HB 101; Ga. L. 2008, p. 564, § 2/SB 33; Ga. L. 2008, p. 829, § 4/HB 1020; Ga. L. 2009, p. 8, § 50/SB 46; Ga. L. 2009, p. 37, §§ 1, 1.1, 1.2/SB 26; Ga. L. 2009, p. 453, § 1-4/HB 228; Ga. L. 2009, p. 698, § 7/HB 126; Ga. L. 2010, p. 243, §§ 1, 2/HB 1086; Ga. L. 2010, p. 286, § 23/SB 244; Ga. L. 2010, p. 415, § 2/HB 249; Ga. L. 2010, p. 963, § 2-21/SB 308; Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, §§ 3-1, 1-68/HB 415; Ga. L. 2011, p. 611, § 1/HB 261; Ga. L. 2011, p. 705, § 5-29/HB 214; Ga. L. 2012, p. 211, § 4/SB 402; Ga. L. 2012, p. 218, § 2/HB 397; Ga. L. 2012, p. 775, § 50/HB 942; Ga. L. 2013, p. 141, § 50/HB 79; Ga. L. 2014, p. 418, § 2/HB 828; Ga. L. 2014, p. 451, § 15/HB 776; Ga. L. 2014, p. 692, § 1/HB 449; Ga. L. 2014, p. 742, § 2/HB 845; Ga. L. 2014, p. 866, § 50/SB 340; Ga. L. 2015, p. 805, § 13/HB 492; Ga. L. 2015, p. 943, § 5/HB 366; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1046, § 5/SB 94; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1065, § 2-3/SB 135; Ga. L. 2016, p. 6, § 2/SB 323; Ga. L. 2018, p. 753, § 3/HB 763; Ga. L. 2018, p. 927, § 4-1/HB 906.)
The 2011 amendments. The first 2011 amendment, effective July 1, 2011, added paragraph (a)(4.2); and, effective May 3, 2011, in subparagraph (a)(15)(A), deleted "and" at the end of division (a)(15)(A)(iii), substituted "; and" for a period at the end of division (a)(15)(A)(iv), and added division (a)(15)(A)(v). The second 2011 amendment, effective July 1, 2011, in subparagraph (a)(15)(A), deleted "and" at the end of division (a)(15)(A)(iii), substituted "; and" for a period at the end of division (a)(15)(A) (iv), and added division (a)(15)(A)(v). The third 2011 amendment, effective July 1, 2011, inserted "the Department of Public Health," in the first sentence of paragraph (c)(2). See Editor's notes for applicability.
The 2012 amendments. The first 2012 amendment, effective July 1, 2012, deleted "or" at the end of paragraph (a)(22), substituted "; or" for the period at the end of paragraph (a)(23), and added paragraph (a)(24) (now paragraph (a)(48)). The second 2012 amendment, effective April 17, 2012, rewrote this Code section. See Editor's notes for applicability. The third 2012 amendment, effective May 1, 2012, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "upon any toll" for "upon such toll" in paragraph (a)(18) (now paragraph (a)(28)).
The 2013 amendment, effective April 24, 2013, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, revised punctuation in paragraph (a)(35).
The 2014 amendments. The first 2014 amendment, effective July 1, 2014, added the proviso at the end of subparagraph (a)(5)(I) and substituted "60 days" for "30 days" near the end of subparagraph (a)(5)(J). The second 2014 amendment, effective July 1, 2014, in paragraph (a)(6), in the first sentence, substituted "The Council" for "the Council" near the middle and substituted "The Council of Superior Court Clerks of Georgia, superior court clerk, or jury clerk shall" for "the Council of Superior Court Clerks of Georgia or the clerk of the county board of jury commissioners of any county shall" and substituted the present provisions of the second sentence for the former provisions, which read: "Neither the Council of Superior Court Clerks of Georgia nor the clerk of a county board of jury commissioners shall be liable for any use or misuse of such data". The third 2014 amendment, effective July 1, 2014, added paragraph (a)(26.1). The fourth 2014 amendment, effective July 1, 2014, added the proviso at the end of paragraph (a)(4). The fifth 2014 amendment, effective April 29, 2014, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "paragraph (5)" for "paragraph (3)" in paragraph (a)(26).
The 2015 amendments. The first 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, inserted "or a judge of the probate court" near the end of paragraph (a)(40). The second 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, added paragraph (a)(49). The third 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, added paragraph (a)(26.2). The fourth 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, added paragraph (a)(49). See the Code Commission note regarding the effect of these amendments.
The 2016 amendment, effective July 1, 2016, substituted "any agency, as such term is defined in subparagraph (a)(1)(A) of Code Section 50-14-1, which pertain" for "the Department of Economic Development pertaining" near the beginning of the first sentence of paragraph (a)(46).
The 2018 amendments. The first 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, added paragraph (a)(25.1). The second 2018 amendment, effective May 8, 2018, substituted "Reserved." for the former provisions of paragraph (a)(12), which read: "Related to the provision of staff services to individual members of the General Assembly by the Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Office, the Senate Research Office, or the House Budget and Research Office, provided that this exception shall not have any application to records related to the provision of staff services to any committee or subcommittee or to any records which are or have been previously publicly disclosed by or pursuant to the direction of an individual member of the General Assembly;" and added paragraph (a)(21.1).
- Privilege against self incrimination, § 24-5-506.
Confidentiality of records of medical peer review groups, § 31-7-133.
Confidentiality of portions of license applications directed to joint-secretary, § 43-1-2(k).
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2008, paragraph (a)(21), as enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 829, § 4, was redesignated as paragraph (a)(22); "or" was deleted at the end of paragraph (a)(20); and "; or" was substituted for a period at the end of paragraph (a)(21).
Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2012, "or" was deleted at the end of paragraph (a)(46), "; or" was substituted for a period at the end of paragraph (a)(47), and paragraph (a)(24) as added by Ga. L. 2012, p. 211, § 1/SB 402 was redesignated as paragraph (a)(48).
Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2015, paragraph (a)(49), as added by Ga. L. 2015, p. 1065, § 2-3/SB 135, was redesignated as paragraph (a)(50), "or" was deleted at the end of paragraph (a)(48), and "; or" was substituted for the period at the end of paragraph (a)(49).
Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2018, a semicolon was substituted for a period at the end of paragraph (a)(12).
- Ga. L. 1999, p. 809, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the social security numbers on driver's licenses and other pertinent personal identifying information appearing on Georgia Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reports is often used for fraudulent purposes and for invading the privacy of individuals; therefore, access to the Georgia Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reports should be restricted.
Ga. L. 2004, p. 410, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'State and Local Tax Revision Act of 2004.'"
Ga. L. 2004, p. 161, § 16, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that "all appointments of guardians of the person or property made pursuant to former Title 29 shall continue in effect and shall thereafter be governed by the provisions of this Act."
Ga. L. 2005, p. 595, § 2/SB 121, not codified by the General Assembly, makes paragraph (a)(18) of this Code section applicable to all requests for copies of records or to inspect records filed or submitted on or after May 2, 2005, and that are pending on May 2, 2005.
Ga. L. 2010, p. 963, § 3-1/SB 308, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that the amendment of this Code section by that Act shall apply to all offenses committed on and after June 4, 2010, and shall not affect any prosecutions for acts occurring before June 4, 2010, and shall not act as an abatement of any such prosecution.
Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-1/HB 415, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Jury Composition Reform Act of 2011.'"
Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 4-1(b)/HB 415, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section by that Act shall apply to open records requests pending on May 3, 2011, or made on and after May 3, 2011.
Ga. L. 2012, p. 211, § 1/SB 402, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Employees' Retirement System of Georgia Enhanced Investment Authority Act.'"
Ga. L. 2012, p. 218, § 18/HB 397, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that "the provisions of paragraph (47) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-18-72 as enacted by this Act shall apply to any request for public records made prior to the effective date of this Act. Agencies shall be permitted to assert the provisions of paragraph (47) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-18-72 as enacted by this Act as a basis for withholding documents covered by that paragraph in any pending or subsequently filed litigation regarding a request that occurred prior to the effective date of this Act." This Act became effective April 17, 2012.
- For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 25 (1997). For survey article on local government law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 285 (2007). For survey article on zoning and land use law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 493 (2007). For article, "Must Government Contractors 'Submit' to Their Own Destruction?: Georgia's Trade Secret Disclosure Exemption and United HealthCare of Georgia, Inc. v. Georgia Department of Community Health," see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 825 (2009). For article on the 2011 amendment of this Code section, see 28 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 147 (2011). For article, "Crimes and Offenses," see 27 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 131 (2011). For article on the 2012 amendment of this Code section, see 29 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 139 (2012). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 79 (2015). For article on the 2016 amendment of this Code section, see 33 Georgia St. U. L. Rev. 31 (2016). For annual survey on local government law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 205 (2017). For note on 1989 amendment to this Code section, see 6 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 324 (1989). For note on 1992 amendment of this Code section, see 9 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 344 (1992). For note on 2000 amendment of this Code section, see 17 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 316 (2000). For note on the 2001 amendment to this Code section, see 18 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 328 (2001). For comment, "Confidentiality and Dissemination of Personal Information: An Examination of State Laws Governing Data Protection," see 41 Emory L.J. 1185 (1992).
Intent of General Assembly was to afford to public at large access to public records with the exceptions of certain information which the law exempts from disclosure. Griffin-Spalding County Hosp. Auth. v. Radio Station WKEU, 240 Ga. 444, 241 S.E.2d 196 (1978).
This section manifests the intent of the General Assembly that reports which include the elements of the tort of invasion of privacy are to be exempted from the disclosure requirements of the law; the right of privacy, protectable in tort, however extends only to unnecessary public scrutiny. Athens Observer, Inc. v. Anderson, 245 Ga. 63, 263 S.E.2d 128 (1980).
- Georgia Supreme Court concludes that the right of access afforded by the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70(b), et seq., is a public right of the people as a whole and, as such, it could not vest in any particular persons, whether upon the making of a request for public records, or upon the filing of an action to enforce the public right; thus, there is no constitutional impediment to the retroactive modification of the Act by subsequent legislation. Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 751 S.E.2d 337 (2013).
- Any purported statutory exemption from disclosure under the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., must be narrowly construed. Hardaway Co. v. Rives, 262 Ga. 631, 422 S.E.2d 854 (1992); City of Brunswick v. Atlanta Journal & Constitution, 214 Ga. App. 150, 447 S.E.2d 41 (1994).
Supreme Court of Georgia interpreted O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(47) to provide that Quick Start records disclosing an economic development project are excepted only to the extent that no binding commitment has been secured, but the exception for Quick Start records relating to job applicants or identifying proprietary hiring practices, training, skills, or other business methods and practices of a private entity is not so limited. Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 751 S.E.2d 337 (2013).
Statutory exception in O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(47) may constitutionally be applied retroactively. Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 751 S.E.2d 337 (2013).
In a suit wherein requestors sought access to Quick Start records under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(47), the statute applied retroactively to the case but the case required a remand for the trial court to sort out the extent to which the specific parts of the requests sought only records that were excepted under § 50-18-72(a)(47) and to dismiss the lawsuit as to those parts of the requests. Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 751 S.E.2d 337 (2013).
Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(47), provides explicitly that § 50-18-72(a)(47) shall apply retroactively to any request for public records made prior to the effective date of the Act. Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 751 S.E.2d 337 (2013).
- O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4) exempts law enforcement records from disclosure to the extent the records are part of a pending investigation. A seemingly inactive investigation which has not yet resulted in a prosecution logically remains undecided, and is therefore "pending" until the investigation is concluded and the file closed. Unified Gov't v. Athens Newspapers, LLC, 284 Ga. 192, 663 S.E.2d 248 (2008).
- Under the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., a city could not rely on the exemption under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4) because the city had not cited the statute in a timely written response as required by § 50-18-72(h). The city's response was untimely and not in writing, and in citing the statute in the city's answer, the city failed to cite the subsection and paragraph relied upon. Jaraysi v. City of Marietta, 294 Ga. App. 6, 668 S.E.2d 446 (2008).
- Under O.C.G.A. §§ 50-18-70(f) and50-18-72(h), the three-day time period to respond to a records request commences upon delivery of the request to the agency, rather than the particular employee in charge of the records. Unified Gov't v. Athens Newspapers, LLC, 284 Ga. 192, 663 S.E.2d 248 (2008).
When a city did not comply with the three-business-day time restriction for responding to an open records request, the city violated the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., even if the city later made all of the requested documents available, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the city. Jaraysi v. City of Marietta, 294 Ga. App. 6, 668 S.E.2d 446 (2008).
- In suits under the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., the first inquiry is whether the records are "public records"; if the records are, the second inquiry is whether the records are protected from disclosure under the list of exemptions or under any other statute; if the records are not exempt, then the question is whether the records should be protected by court order, but only if there is a claim that disclosure would invade individual privacy. Hardaway Co. v. Rives, 262 Ga. 631, 422 S.E.2d 854 (1992).
As a police department's investigation of an unsolved rape and murder remained "pending" under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4) until the file was closed, the county was not obliged to disclose records of the investigation to a newspaper under the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq. Unified Gov't v. Athens Newspapers, LLC, 284 Ga. 192, 663 S.E.2d 248 (2008).
- Underlying implication of this section is that all records of all state, county, and municipal authorities are open to public inspection unless closed by a specific exception, and that the records of hospital authorities are not in any respect different from those of other authorities when the issue is one of whether the particular record is open to public inspection under the general provisions of this article or is closed to public inspection under a specific statutory exception. Doe v. Sears, 245 Ga. 83, 263 S.E.2d 119, appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 446 U.S. 979, 100 S. Ct. 2958, 64 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1980).
Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the corporation on the corporation's request that the individual disclose to the corporation the individual's tax records so that the corporation could evaluate whether the individual was properly awarded a city contract based on the city's designation of the individual's business as a disadvantaged business; the corporation sought the information for a legitimate, limited purpose and the individuals could not show a specific exception that would bar disclosure of those records. City of Atlanta v. Corey Entm't, Inc., 278 Ga. 474, 604 S.E.2d 140 (2004).
- Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(h), in denying a request for records under the Open Records Act (ORA), an agency was allowed to rely only on the legal authority specified in a response denying an initial request so an insurance commissioner was not allowed to deny an ORA request for records relating to an investigation of an insurer only on the insurer's proffered basis of the pendency of the investigation, and as the insurer had already been given the chance to review the report and resolve the matter, but later withdrew the insurer's request for a hearing, the commissioner's general policy of not releasing reports until the subject of the investigation had a chance to review the report and resolve the matter was unauthorized. Hoffman v. Oxendine, 268 Ga. App. 316, 601 S.E.2d 813 (2004).
§ 1395bb(a). - There is no requirement under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72 that a report generated by or used by the state for state purposes be exempted from disclosure merely because that report would be kept confidential if generated or used by the federal government for federal purposes. Georgia Hosp. Ass'n v. Ledbetter, 260 Ga. 477, 396 S.E.2d 488 (1990).
- Invasion of personal privacy encompassed as an exception to the right of the public to access is to be determined by an examination of the tort of invasion of privacy. Harris v. Cox Enters., Inc., 256 Ga. 299, 348 S.E.2d 448 (1986).
- Right of privacy does not prohibit the communication of any matter though of a private nature when the publication is made under circumstances which would render it a privileged communication according to the law of libel and slander. Dennis v. Adcock, 138 Ga. App. 425, 226 S.E.2d 292 (1976).
Cited in Northside Realty Assocs. v. Community Relations Comm'n, 240 Ga. 432, 241 S.E.2d 189 (1978); Atchison v. Hospital Auth., 245 Ga. 494, 265 S.E.2d 801 (1980); City of Atlanta v. Pacific & S. Co., 257 Ga. 587, 361 S.E.2d 484 (1987); McBride v. Wetherington, 199 Ga. App. 7, 403 S.E.2d 873 (1991); Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2003); Walker v. Johnson, 282 Ga. 168, 646 S.E.2d 44 (2007).
Privacy rights of a private transportation company and school bus drivers could not outweigh the public interest in the disclosure of information in personnel records regarding the drivers. Hackworth v. Board of Educ., 214 Ga. App. 17, 447 S.E.2d 78 (1994).
- Confidential tax information in an investigative file of the Attorney General was not subject to disclosure under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72. Bowers v. Shelton, 265 Ga. 247, 453 S.E.2d 741 (1995).
- Trial court properly held that a CD-ROM that contained passwords, encryption codes, and other security information would compromise election security and thus was exempt from disclosure under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(15)(A)(iv). Although the requestor argued that the state could copy the CD-ROM without including such information, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70(d) provided that an agency was not required to create records that were not in existence at the time of the request. Smith v. DeKalb County, 288 Ga. App. 574, 654 S.E.2d 469 (2007), cert. denied, No. S08C0596, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 291 (Ga. 2008).
- Incident reports of a city police department were exempt from disclosure under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(3) to the extent the reports contained confidential information, even though the reports would not be exempted under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4) as not being part of a pending investigation or prosecution. Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. City of Brunswick, 265 Ga. 413, 457 S.E.2d 176 (1995).
In an action by newspapers for disclosure of certain incident reports of a city police department, it was not error to bar the newspapers from an ex parte hearing held to determine the extent to which the reports might contain confidential information that would be exempt from disclosure; affirming City of Brunswick v. Atlanta Journal & Constitution, 214 Ga. App. 150, 447 S.E.2d 41 (1994). Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. City of Brunswick, 265 Ga. 413, 457 S.E.2d 176 (1995).
- When a complaint was delivered to a sheriff's captain who delivered the complaint to the deputy named as a defendant in the complaint, service upon the deputy was insufficient since the prohibition against disclosure of the home address of a law enforcement officer under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72 did not validate the delivery to the captain as service under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(e)(7). Melton v. Wiley, F.3d (11th Cir. Jan. 15, 2008)(Unpublished).
Incident reports maintained by a city on a series of sexual assaults could be exempted from disclosure if disclosure would reveal confidential information or endanger the lives of various individuals. City of Brunswick v. Atlanta Journal & Constitution, 214 Ga. App. 150, 447 S.E.2d 41 (1994), aff'd, 265 Ga. 413, 457 S.E.2d 176 (1995).
Police reports concerning rape were not protected by the "similar file" exemption of O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(2), because the documents were expressly governed by O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4) and concerned a subject of "legitimate public inquiry." Doe v. Board of Regents, 215 Ga. App. 684, 452 S.E.2d 776 (1994).
University police reports concerning incident of alleged rape were public records obtainable by a student newspaper; the reports were not exempt under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4), since the reports were not the subject of a pending investigation and involved a matter which had been terminated. Doe v. Board of Regents, 215 Ga. App. 684, 452 S.E.2d 776 (1994).
- Private investigator seeking information for commercial solicitation has no first amendment constitutional right of special access to motor vehicle accident reports. Spottsville v. Barnes, 135 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2001).
- Although unauthorized publicity of the contents of hospital records, a patient's health, patient's anatomical debilities, and the opinions, diagnoses, and tests of the patient's doctors would fall within the restriction of this section, the section does not preclude the use of the records in relevant court proceedings, nor does the section provide a basis for a tort action for invasion of privacy when such material is admitted into evidence. Dennis v. Adcock, 138 Ga. App. 425, 226 S.E.2d 292 (1976) see O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72).
- Defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., seeking discovery of the district attorney's voir dire notes was premature as the defendant still retained the right to do so in a habeas proceeding. Hall v. Madison, 263 Ga. 73, 428 S.E.2d 345 (1993).
- Various factors weigh on the question of whether personal privacy protects information from disclosure. Among other things, the court should consider whether the information is unsubstantiated and based on hearsay, whether the information does not relate or relates only incidentally to the subject matter of the public record, and the remoteness in time of the events referred to. Harris v. Cox Enters., Inc., 256 Ga. 299, 348 S.E.2d 448 (1986).
- Property has been "acquired" for purposes of the exemption set forth in O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(6) only after condemnation proceedings, including any litigation, have been completed. Real estate appraisals obtained by the Department of Transportation were not subject to disclosure when only the declaration of taking was filed and money was paid into court. Black v. Georgia DOT, 262 Ga. 342, 417 S.E.2d 655 (1992).
Pending-prosecution exemption of O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4) refers to imminent adjudicatory proceedings of finite duration. The last phrase of that exemption is but one example of when a prosecution should not be considered "pending" for purposes of the exception. Parker v. Lee, 259 Ga. 195, 378 S.E.2d 677 (1989).
- In determining whether an invasion of the privacy rights of murder victims is warranted or unwarranted, the question can be stated in terms of whether the privacy interests of the deceased are outweighed by the interests of the public favoring disclosure. Napper v. Georgia Television Co., 257 Ga. 156, 356 S.E.2d 640 (1987).
- "Investigative notes" are not within the category of law enforcement and prosecutorial documents authorized for release under the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq.; investigative notes are "notes" not "reports," and cannot be classified as police arrest reports, accident reports, or incident reports. Lebis v. State, 212 Ga. App. 481, 442 S.E.2d 786 (1994).
- Investigatory report concerning claims of misconduct against an employee of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles was a public record and was not exempt from disclosure under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72. Fincher v. State, 231 Ga. App. 49, 497 S.E.2d 632 (1998).
Hospital authority claimed certain records of its internal investigation of alleged sexual misconduct by its employees were exempt from disclosure under the attorney work product doctrine, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(e)(2) of the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq. This claim failed, as the investigation, despite the involvement of counsel for the authority, was commenced not in response to any claims or threat of litigation, but because the authority received anonymous complaints from its employees about inappropriate sexual activity. Fulton DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Miller & Billips, 293 Ga. App. 601, 667 S.E.2d 455 (2008).
County's sheriff and district attorney were not required to release records relating to an inmate's death in custody under the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., because the records came within the "pending prosecution" exemption to disclosure in O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4). The exception for agencies under investigation did not apply because "agency," as defined in O.C.G.A. §§ 50-14-1(a)(1)(C) and50-18-70(b), was not synonymous with "employee," and the agency itself was not under investigation. Media Gen. Operations, Inc. v. St. Lawrence, 337 Ga. App. 428, 787 S.E.2d 778 (2016).
- When a murder conviction and death sentence resulting from the prosecution have been affirmed on appeal, but a rape conviction has been reversed on a ground that leaves the state free to retry the defendant, the possible retrial of the defendant does not warrant nondisclosure to the defendant of criminal investigatory files since the agency custodians of the files at issue failed to carry the agency's burden of showing an imminent proceeding on the rape charge against the defendant to exempt such files from disclosure pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4). Parker v. Lee, 259 Ga. 195, 378 S.E.2d 677 (1989).
- O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72 forbids disclosure to the general public from housing authority records or files of any information which would invade the constitutional, statutory, or common-law rights of the tenants to privacy. Doe v. Sears, 245 Ga. 83, 263 S.E.2d 119, appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 446 U.S. 979, 100 S. Ct. 2958, 64 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1980).
- Ad valorem property tax records are not similar to medical records for the purpose of O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72 and are not required to be kept confidential. Pensyl v. Peach County, 252 Ga. 450, 314 S.E.2d 434 (1984).
- Disclosure of the names, salaries, and job titles of county hospital employees is not an invasion of personal privacy as contemplated by the General Assembly to permit an exemption from disclosure, nor is the public interest in disclosure outweighed by benefits to the hospital accruing from nondisclosure. Richmond County Hosp. Auth. v. Southeastern Newspapers Corp., 252 Ga. 19, 311 S.E.2d 806 (1984).
Mere placement of records of Georgia Bureau of Investigation's investigation in the personnel file of an investigated public employee did not transform the records into personnel-related records. Irvin v. Macon Tel. Publishing Co., 253 Ga. 43, 316 S.E.2d 449 (1984).
- Neither the "state matter" privilege nor the "secret of state" privilege exempted cost estimates of the DOT from disclosure under the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq. Hardaway Co. v. Rives, 262 Ga. 631, 422 S.E.2d 854 (1992).
- Applications submitted by candidates for the position of Georgia State University president, and the resumes and vitae, which were products of the applicants themselves, although those materials were materials upon which, in part, "confidential evaluations" were based, were not evaluations. Hence, those materials were not exempt from disclosure. Board of Regents v. Atlanta Journal, 259 Ga. 214, 378 S.E.2d 305 (1989).
Records containing city cellular telephone bills, including numbers assigned to city cellular telephones, were not exempt from disclosure under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(2). Dortch v. Atlanta Journal, 261 Ga. 350, 405 S.E.2d 43 (1991).
- After a company made reasonable efforts to restrict the dissemination of trade secret information except for providing the information to the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, trade secret status was not lost simply because the company did not notify the EPD each time that the company provided EPD with information containing trade secrets. Theragenics Corp. v. Department of Natural Resources, 244 Ga. App. 829, 536 S.E.2d 613 (2000), aff'd,. Ga. Dep't of Natural Res. v. Theragenics Corp., 273 Ga. 724, 545 S.E.2d 904 (2001).
Given the highly competitive nature of the asphalt industry in the State of Georgia, the trial court did not err in permanently enjoining the DOT from giving unredacted copies of documents, which contained trade secrets and confidential technical specifications relating to the mix design, to a competitor of a group of contractors; further, the public could ascertain whether a contractor's asphalt product met DOT requirements by examining information on the forms, which was not included in the trial court's injunction, and the records did not fall within the exception to Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., disclosure because the contractors were not required by law to submit the information to the DOT. Douglas Asphalt Co. v. E. R. Snell Contr., Inc., 282 Ga. App. 546, 639 S.E.2d 372 (2006), cert. denied, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 140 (2007).
Trade secrets exemption of O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(b)(1) means that public records are exempt from disclosure if the records constitute trade secrets, even if the records are submitted to a public agency, so long as the submission was "required by law"; under this construction, public records that remain in the sole possession of a private entity are exempt from disclosure if the records otherwise qualify as trade secrets under the two-part test set forth in O.C.G.A. § 10-1-761(4). As such, the trial court erred in concluding that documents of the administrator of the State Health Benefit Plan could not be exempt from disclosure because the documents were never "required by law to be submitted" to the Georgia Department of Community Health. United HealthCare of Ga., Inc. v. Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health, 293 Ga. App. 84, 666 S.E.2d 472 (2008).
By voluntarily entering into a public contract to administer public funds, the administrator of the State Health Benefit Plan did not waive the right to have the administrator's documents protected as trade secrets. A private entity's voluntary participation in a government contract did not, standing alone, strip the entity's documents of its trade secret status. United HealthCare of Ga., Inc. v. Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health, 293 Ga. App. 84, 666 S.E.2d 472 (2008).
Bidder on a public project failed to provide any evidence to support the bidder's claim that the detailed pricing information in the bidder's unredacted price proposal would enable a competitor to deduce how the bidder designed the bidder's systems and, therefore, merited protection under the trade secrets exemption to the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(b)(1). State Rd. & Tollway Auth. v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp., 306 Ga. App. 487, 702 S.E.2d 486 (2010).
- Trial court erred in ruling that the university had the discretion to release the research correspondence in response to the intervenor's open record request, even if the plaintiff brought a suit to enjoin the disclosure and demonstrated that the correspondence was exempt from disclosure under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72, because, pursuant to the case law, the plaintiff was entitled to enjoin the university from disclosing the research correspondence to the intervenor as the plaintiff showed that the correspondence fell within one or both of the research exceptions found in the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70, et seq., and the nondisclosure of statutorily excepted information was mandatory rather than discretionary under the Act. Consumer Credit Research Found. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 341 Ga. App. 323, 800 S.E.2d 24 (2017).
Foundation that had partnered with a state university to study the effect of payday loans on consumer financial health could not prevent the disclosure of university records of the study under the Open Records Act's, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., exemptions for certain research materials, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(35) and (36), because those exemptions did not prohibit release. Campaign for Accountability v. Consumer Credit Research Found., 303 Ga. 828, 815 S.E.2d 841 (2018).
- Trial court erred in entering summary judgment for a county and a county manager in an employee's suit for attorney fees arising out of a Georgia Open Records Act (ORA), O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., request as the employee showed that the ORA was violated as the manager did not respond to the request within the required three-day period; the case was remanded for a determination of whether the ORA violation was without substantial justification or whether special circumstances existed that counseled against awarding attorney fees. Wallace v. Greene County, 274 Ga. App. 776, 618 S.E.2d 642 (2005).
County's summary judgment motion was properly denied as: (1) the county violated the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., by failing to respond to a bidder's request within three business days; (2) the county did not produce any documents for over a month and did not provide all requested documents until after a civil suit for attorney's fees was filed; and (3) the county further failed to explain the county's dilatory conduct in any evidence submitted with the county's summary judgment motion. Benefit Support, Inc. v. Hall County, 281 Ga. App. 825, 637 S.E.2d 763 (2006), cert. denied, No. S07C0306, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 214 (Ga. 2007).
- Trade secrets and other confidential business information received by the state energy office from the federal government and businesses in the private sector are not within the purview of O.C.G.A. Art. 4, Ch. 18, T. 50, and may be treated as confidential by that state agency. 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U74-113.
- Trade secrets of any state department, agency, board, bureau, commission, or authority are not exempt from public disclosure under the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., although information in the possession of such entity which is a trade secret of others must be protected from disclosure. If it is not clear that the requested information constitutes a trade secret of another, the entity contending that the information is a trade secret may exercise the entity's rights to protect the information pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-1-762. 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 94-15.
- Department of Offender Rehabilitation (now Corrections) may supply copies of former inmate's prison medical records to person other than an inmate who is neither a doctor nor the agent of a hospital. As a condition precedent to delivery of such records, however, the department should demand proof of the requesting party's authority and might also condition delivery upon tender of payment sufficient to cover the department's expenses in copying the material requested. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-77.
- If the medical board of the Employees' Retirement System determines that the examining physician has met the criteria of O.C.G.A. § 31-33-2(c) in recommending nondisclosure of medical records prepared in the evaluation of a claim for disability retirement benefits, it is appropriate to refuse copies of those reports to the applicant who was examined. 1992 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 92-19.
- Department of Natural Resources is not required to provide public access to raw or unenhanced satellite data purchased from EOSAT (a firm that markets unenhanced satellite data), but it must provide public access to the enhanced database of satellite imagery. 1992 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 92-13.
- Construing former O.C.G.A. § 21-2-242 with O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-217(a),21-2-234, and50-18-70 et seq., registration cards must be subject to disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq. However, in accordance with the federal Privacy Act of 1974, Section 7(b) (5 U.S.C. § 552 as note), if a registrar is going to require disclosure of a social security number on a voter registration card, the individual registering to vote should be informed as to whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, under what statutory authority the disclosure is requested, and the uses to which the disclosure will be put. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-5.
Social security number of a voter is required by O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217(a) to be recorded on a voter registration card, if the number is known at the time of application, and must be disclosed under an Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., request. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-5.
- Voter registrars have no authority to request the inclusion of a telephone number on a voter registration card, and in the absence of statutory authority either to require or to request that an elector provide a telephone number, whether listed or unlisted, for a voter registration card, the disclosure of an unlisted number pursuant to an Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., request may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Hence, a voter's unlisted telephone number should not be disclosed by voter registrars under an Open Records Act request. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-5.
- No information contained in confidential medical files should be released to a requesting party unless some prior assurance is given that the requesting party is either the subject of the file in question or that the requesting party has in fact been authorized by that person to receive the information which the requesting party seeks. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-77.
- Portion of Subsequent Injury Trust Fund Board meetings in which the medical and rehabilitation records of an individual are discussed are not subject to the Open Meetings Law, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq. 1991 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 91-8.
- When a public agency is assembling more than one parcel of real property for a public project, records relative to that "transaction" and "property" as a whole are exempt from disclosure under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(6) until all the property to be acquired is acquired or is abandoned or terminated from the project. 1995 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 95-10.
- Information provided to the Department of Community Affairs in connection with the community development block grant program is not exempt from disclosure under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72 unless such information constitutes a trade secret. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. 89-35.
- If there is a request for identifiable public records, the burden is cast upon the custodian of those records to explain why the records should not be disclosed. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-5.
- Agencies covered by the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., may not by contract with a federal agency create an exception to the Act and make otherwise public documents in the hands of the agency confidential unless the contract provision is mandated by federal law or regulation. 2005 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U2005-1.
- Validity, construction, and application of statutory provisions relating to public access to police records, 82 A.L.R.3d 19.
When are government records "similar files" exempt from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act provision (5 USCS § 552(b)(6)) exempting certain personnel, medical, and "similar" files, 106 A.L.R. Fed. 94.
What is agency subject to Privacy Act Provisions (5 USCA § 552a), 150 A.L.R. Fed. 521.
What are "records" of agency which must be made available under Freedom of Information Act (5 USCA § 552(a)(3)), 153 A.L.R. Fed. 571.
What are interagency or intra-agency memorandums or letters exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)), 168 A.L.R. Fed. 143.
What matters are exempt from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)) as "specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy,", 169 A.L.R. Fed. 495.
What constitutes "confidential source" within Freedom of Information Act exemption permitting nondisclosure of confidential source and, in some instances, of information furnished by confidential source (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)), 171 A.L.R. Fed. 193.
Construction and application of FOIA exemption 7(f), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)(7)(F), which permits withholding of information compiled for law enforcement purposes if disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger life or physical safety, 184 A.L.R. Fed. 435.
Use of affidavits to substantiate federal agency's claim of exemption from request for documents under Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 552), 187 A.L.R. Fed. 1
When are government records reasonably "expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings" so as to be exempt from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act provision (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)(7)(a)) exempting any information "compiled for law enforcement purposes" whenever it "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,", 189 A.L.R. Fed. 1
Disclosure of electronic data under state public records and freedom of information acts, 54 A.L.R.6th 653.
Construction and application of public domain or official acknowledgment doctrine allowing courts to disregard FOIA exemption, other than law enforcement exemption, based on prior public release of requested records, 17 A.L.R. Fed. 3d 1.
Construction and application of public domain doctrine allowing courts to disregard FOIA law enforcement exemption based on prior public release of requested records, 3 A.L.R. Fed. 3d 5.
Construction and application of exemption 7(E) of Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)(7)(E), for records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes to extent that production of such law enforcement records or information would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of law, 70 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 493.
Total Results: 20
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-10-22
Snippet: pending-prosecution exception pursuant to OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (4) for the documents requested in Exhibit
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-06-18
Citation: 815 S.E.2d 841
Snippet: disclosed based on the ORA exemptions listed in OCGA § 50-18-72 (a). See Consumer Credit Research Found. v. Bd
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-10-30
Citation: 302 Ga. 645, 807 S.E.2d 324
Snippet: inconsistent with the Open Records Act, OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (9), which, at the time Section 22-1-9 was
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-07-05
Citation: 299 Ga. 557, 788 S.E.2d 484, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 457
Snippet: by Propst with reasonable diligence. See OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (26) (allowing disclosure of 911 recordings
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-06-15
Snippet: exemption for pending investigations. See OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (4).1 Evans then sought a writ of mandamus
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-06-15
Citation: 297 Ga. 318, 773 S.E.2d 725, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 440
Snippet: exemption for pending investigations. See OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (4). 1 Evans then sought a writ
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-11-18
Citation: 294 Ga. 170, 751 S.E.2d 337, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 3507, 2013 WL 6050665, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 965
Snippet: Act, and among other revisions, it added OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (47), which excepts certain records concerning
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-10-06
Citation: 668 S.E.2d 651, 284 Ga. 555, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 3160, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 824
Snippet: evidence that affect our decision. [3] See OCGA § 50-18-72(a)(4); Parker v. Lee, 259 Ga. 195, 197-198(4)
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-06-30
Citation: 663 S.E.2d 248, 284 Ga. 192, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2132, 36 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1968, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 547
Snippet: or prosecutions in subsection (a) (4) of OCGA § 50-18-72 of the Open Records Act. Consistent with the legislative
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-05-14
Citation: 644 S.E.2d 860
Snippet: father filed an Open Records Request. See OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (4). As for the required showing of prejudice
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-05-14
Citation: 646 S.E.2d 44, 282 Ga. 168, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 1469, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 349
Snippet: father filed an Open Records Request. See OCGA § 50-18-72(a)(4). As for the required showing of prejudice
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-07-06
Citation: 632 S.E.2d 113, 280 Ga. 706, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 2191, 34 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2468, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 468
Snippet: statutory framework or legislative intent.1 OCGA§ 50-18-72 enumerates specific exemptions to protected documents
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-10-12
Citation: 604 S.E.2d 140, 278 Ga. 474
Snippet: therefore exempted from disclosure under OCGA § 50-18-72(a)(1). The trial court disagreed, granted Corey
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-10-01
Citation: 553 S.E.2d 561, 274 Ga. 257, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 2928, 29 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2534, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 759
Snippet: reports are subject to the Open Records Act, OCGA § 50-18-72(a)(4), the Legislature has made no provision to
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-04-30
Citation: 545 S.E.2d 904, 273 Ga. 724, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 1470, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 299
Snippet: imposed on EPD by the Open Records Act. OCGA § 50-18-72(b)(1) clearly provides that any trade secrets
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2000-09-11
Citation: 535 S.E.2d 243, 272 Ga. 725, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 3561, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 619
Snippet: medical records exemption *245 found in OCGA § 50-18-72(a)(2). Schulten filed a petition for writ of mandamus
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-05-22
Citation: 265 Ga. 413, 457 S.E.2d 176, 23 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2085, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 1765, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 285
Snippet: OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (4), are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (3)
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-03-06
Citation: 265 Ga. 247, 453 S.E.2d 741
Snippet: with certain exceptions enumerated at OCGA § 50-18-72 (a). While the enumerated exceptions are similar
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1993-04-19
Citation: 428 S.E.2d 345, 263 Ga. 73, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1679, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 373
Snippet: an exception to the Public Records Act. OCGA § 50-18-72 (e) (2). Hall has argued that we should observe
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1993-03-15
Citation: 427 S.E.2d 257, 262 Ga. 848, 21 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1309, 92 Fulton County D. Rep. 964, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 309
Snippet: are specifically exempted by virtue of OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) which provides that public disclosure is not