Sec. 1. A fundamental philosophy of the American
constitutional form of representative government is that government is
the servant of the people and not their master. Accordingly, it is the
public policy of the state that all persons are entitled to full and
complete information regarding the affairs of government and the
official acts of those who represent them as public officials and
employees. Providing persons with the information is an essential
function of a representative government and an integral part of the
routine duties of public officials and employees, whose duty it is to
provide the information. This chapter shall be liberally construed to
implement this policy and place the burden of proof for the
nondisclosure of a public record on the public agency that would deny
access to the record and not on the person seeking to inspect and copy
the record.
As added by P.L.19-1983, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.77-1995,
SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Kentner v. Indiana Pub. Employers' Plan, Inc., 852 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “Ind.Code § 5-14-3-1. Section 3 of APRA goes on to provide that "Any person may inspect and copy the public records of any public agency.”
Bobrow v. Bobrow, 810 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “Instead, this appeal involves parties who intervened in the dissolution proceedings to address the key issue of whether the Indiana Access to Public Records Act, Indiana Code §§ 5-14-3-1 to -10 ("the Public Records Act" or "the Act"), permits a trial court to seal public records…”
Indianapolis Newspapers v. Indiana State Lottery Comm'n, 739 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 7× “Ind.Code §§ 5-14-3-1, -9(e). Thus, had this case proceeded in the sequence contemplated by the statute, after the Lottery denied the Star’s request pursuant to the APRA, the Star would have filed an action to compel release of the information, the Lottery would have notified the…”
Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 2 N.E.3d 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “" Ind.Code § 5-14-3-1. Likewise, this Court has adopted rules on public access to court records, "taking into account public policy interests that are not always fully compatible with unrestricted access.”
Journal-Gazette Co. v. Bandido's, Inc., 712 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. 1999).
· cites it 2× “The court ordered the Fort Wayne — Allen County Board of Public Health to disclose all records dealing with the inspection of Allen County restaurants and food establishments because such records were public records within the meaning of Ind.Code § 5-14-3-1 et. seq. (R. at 17Ó2.”
Jackson v. Brinker, 147 F.R.D. 189 (S.D. Ind. 1993).
· cites it 4× “”), Ind.Code Ann. § 5-14-3-1 et seq. (Burns 1987), also prohibits release of the plaintiffs medical records without a court order.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.