Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 61
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.800 (2026)

Legislative statement of policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The General Assembly finds and declares that the basic policy of KRS 61.805 to 61.850 is that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret and the exceptions provided for by KRS 61.810 or otherwise provided for by law shall be strictly construed. Effective: July 14, 1992 History: Created 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 162, sec. 1, effective July 14, 1992.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Yeoman v. Com., Health Policy Bd., 983 S.W.2d 459 (Ky. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yeoman v. Com., Health Policy Bd., 983 S.W.2d 459 (Ky. 1998). · cites it 8× “DID THE HEALTH POLICY BOARD ("HPB") MEET IN VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT? Under the Open Meeting Act ("Act"), KRS § 61.800 et seq., "[a]ll meetings of a quorum of the members of a public agency at which any public business is discussed or at which any action is taken by…”
Carter v. Smith, 366 S.W.3d 414 (Ky. 2012). · cites it 3× “” KRS 61.800. The few exceptions to this open meetings requirement are located in KRS 61.”
Floyd Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921 (Ky. 1997). · cites it 4× “The case involves alleged violations of the Kentucky Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.800 through KRS 61.850, and specific exemptions for executive sessions contained in KRS 61.”
Cape Publications, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 2× “In fact, at the time these donations were made, the Foundation's status had only been considered within the context of Kentucky's Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.800 et seq. In Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Company v.”
Webster Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin, 392 S.W.3d 431 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “]” KRS 61.800. The failure to comply with the strict letter of the law in conducting meetings of a public agency violates the public good.”
Miracle v. Bell Cnty. Emergency Med. Servs., 237 S.W.3d 555 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007). “Finally, although appellants suggest at the conclusion of their brief on appeal that appellees violated the Open Meetings Act, see KRS 61.800 to 61.850, they have not demonstrated and we have not found that they timely raised such a claim below.”
Bd. of Commissioners of the City of Danville, Kentucky v. Advocate Commc'ns, Inc. D/B/A the Advocate-Messenger, 527 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2017). · cites it 2× “” KRS 61.800. While exceptions to the open meeting requirement are set forth in KRS 61.”
Cheatham v. Commonwealth, 131 S.W.3d 349 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004). “Corrections Cabinet, 7 we held that an individual whose civil rights had been restored pursuant to sections 145 and 150 was ineligible for consideration as a peace officer pursuant to KRS 61.800 absent a full pardon under section 77.”
Helbig v. City of Bowling Green, 371 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011). “To this effect, Bowling Green noted that the new overtime policy had been publicly adopted by the Bowling Green City Commission in accordance with the Kentucky Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.800 et seq. In his response to Bowling Green’s motion and later during oral arguments before…”
Lincoln Trail Grain Growers Ass'n v. Meade Cnty. Fiscal Court (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “Lincoln Trail and its members alleged that the votes by the Fiscal Court and the Riverport Authority were conducted in violation of the Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.800 et. seq., and that the vote of the Riverport Authority was conducted without a quorum of proper members.”
Bd. of Commissioners of the City of Danville, Kentucky v. Advocate Commc'ns, Inc. D/B/A the Advocate-Messenger (Ky. 2017). · cites it 2× “" KRS 61.800. While exceptions to the.open meeting requirement are set forth in KRS 61.”
Anne Coorssen v. Eric Farris (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “KRS 61.800 et seq.: The Open Meetings Act Appellant goes on to argue that communications between Appellees and the Board at the February 9, 2023 special executive session are not privileged because the Board violated the open meetings requirements set out at KRS 61.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.