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

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.815 (2026)

Requirements for conducting closed sessions

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

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the following requirements shall be met as a condition for conducting closed sessions authorized by KRS 61.810:

(a) Notice shall be given in regular open meeting of the general nature of the business to be discussed in closed session, the reason for the closed session, and the specific provision of KRS 61.810 authorizing the closed session;

(b) Closed sessions may be held only after a motion is made and carried by a majority vote in open, public session;

(c) No final action may be taken at a closed session; and

(d) No matters may be discussed at a closed session other than those publicly announced prior to convening the closed session.

(2) Public agencies and activities of public agencies identified in paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), but only so far as (f) relates to students, (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m) of subsection (1) of KRS 61.810 shall be excluded from the requirements of subsection (1) of this section. Effective: March 16, 2005 History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 93, sec. 2, effective March 16, 2005. -- Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 162, sec. 4, effective July 14, 1992. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 377, sec. 3.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Carter v. Smith, 366 S.W.3d 414 (Ky. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carter v. Smith, 366 S.W.3d 414 (Ky. 2012). · cites it 4× “1981) clarified that the voidability provision “renders an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, not void but voidable.” Further, the Attorney General explained over thirty years ago, [A]ctions taken in violation of the Open Meetings Law are voidable by…”
Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Courier-Journal, 551 S.W.2d 25 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 7× “The main points of contention in this appeal have centered on the adequacy of notice required by KRS 61.815 before a closed session can be held on select topics and the coverage of certain of the enumerated exceptions to open meetings in KRS 61.”
Floyd Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921 (Ky. 1997). · cites it 2× “KRS 61.815 provides that prior to going into an executive session, the public body must state the specific exception contained in the statute which is relied upon in order to permit a secret session.”
Webster Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin, 392 S.W.3d 431 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “Notwithstanding this exception, the Webster County Clerk argued that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act because KRS 61.815(1)(c) provides that “[n]o final action may be taken at a closed sessionf.”
Stinson v. State Bd. of Acct., 625 S.W.2d 589 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 5× “830 renders an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, not void but voidable, we do not choose to void the action of the Board because Stinson raised no objection and because he demonstrated no prejudice as a result of the Board’s action.”
Reed v. City of Richmond, 582 S.W.2d 651 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “We also note that the closed hearings were held without compliance with KRS 61.815 which specifies the conditions under which closed hearings may be conducted.”
Terri Bradshaw v. Capital Cmty. Econ./Indus. Dev. Auth. (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 12× “1981) (“[S]ince [the OMA] renders an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, not void but voidable, we do not choose to void the action of the Board because Stinson raised no objection and because he demonstrated no prejudice as a result of the Board’s…”
Blair v. City of Winchester, 743 S.W.2d 28 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987). “Likewise the argument that the board violated the open meetings statute, KRS 61.815, by deliberating in a closed session is meritless.”
Stuff Props. v. winchester/clark Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “810, KRS 61.815(1)(a), KRS 61.815(1)(b), and KRS 61.”
J. Albert Harrison v. Oldham Cnty. Ethics Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “5 As acknowledged in a footnote in Harrison’s brief, the Commission did provide legal justification for violating the act.”
Univ. of Kentucky v. Lachin Hatemi, M.D. (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “at *1, a potential violation of KRS 61.815 which authorizes closed meetings of public agency’s under limited circumstances.”
Cunningham v. Whalen, 373 S.W.3d 438 (Ky. 2012). “KRS 61.815(2) also exempts the litigation exception from the requirements of announcement of a closed session and a public vote on holding a closed session, as well as the requirement that no final action be taken.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.815(1) — 3 cases
Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Courier-Journal, 551 S.W.2d 25 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “The main points of contention in this appeal have centered on the adequacy of notice required by KRS 61.815 before a closed session can be held on select topics and the coverage of certain of the enumerated exceptions to open meetings in KRS 61.”
Terri Bradshaw v. Capital Cmty. Econ./Indus. Dev. Auth. (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). “1981) (“[S]ince [the OMA] renders an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, not void but voidable, we do not choose to void the action of the Board because Stinson raised no objection and because he demonstrated no prejudice as a result of the Board’s…”
J. Albert Harrison v. Oldham Cnty. Ethics Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “5 As acknowledged in a footnote in Harrison’s brief, the Commission did provide legal justification for violating the act.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.815(1)(a) — 3 cases
Terri Bradshaw v. Capital Cmty. Econ./Indus. Dev. Auth. (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). “1981) (“[S]ince [the OMA] renders an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, not void but voidable, we do not choose to void the action of the Board because Stinson raised no objection and because he demonstrated no prejudice as a result of the Board’s…”
Stuff Props. v. winchester/clark Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). “810, KRS 61.815(1)(a), KRS 61.815(1)(b), and KRS 61.”
J. Albert Harrison v. Oldham Cnty. Ethics Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “5 As acknowledged in a footnote in Harrison’s brief, the Commission did provide legal justification for violating the act.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.815(1)(b) — 1 case
Stuff Props. v. winchester/clark Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). “810, KRS 61.815(1)(a), KRS 61.815(1)(b), and KRS 61.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.815(1)(c) — 4 cases
Webster Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin, 392 S.W.3d 431 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013). “Notwithstanding this exception, the Webster County Clerk argued that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act because KRS 61.815(1)(c) provides that “[n]o final action may be taken at a closed sessionf.”
Stuff Props. v. winchester/clark Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). “810, KRS 61.815(1)(a), KRS 61.815(1)(b), and KRS 61.”
Terri Bradshaw v. Capital Cmty. Econ./Indus. Dev. Auth. (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). “1981) (“[S]ince [the OMA] renders an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, not void but voidable, we do not choose to void the action of the Board because Stinson raised no objection and because he demonstrated no prejudice as a result of the Board’s…”
J. Albert Harrison v. Oldham Cnty. Ethics Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “5 As acknowledged in a footnote in Harrison’s brief, the Commission did provide legal justification for violating the act.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.815(1)(f) — 1 case
Terri Bradshaw v. Capital Cmty. Econ./Indus. Dev. Auth. (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). “1981) (“[S]ince [the OMA] renders an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, not void but voidable, we do not choose to void the action of the Board because Stinson raised no objection and because he demonstrated no prejudice as a result of the Board’s…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.815(2) — 3 cases
Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Courier-Journal, 551 S.W.2d 25 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “The main points of contention in this appeal have centered on the adequacy of notice required by KRS 61.815 before a closed session can be held on select topics and the coverage of certain of the enumerated exceptions to open meetings in KRS 61.”
J. Albert Harrison v. Oldham Cnty. Ethics Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “5 As acknowledged in a footnote in Harrison’s brief, the Commission did provide legal justification for violating the act.”
Cunningham v. Whalen, 373 S.W.3d 438 (Ky. 2012). “KRS 61.815(2) also exempts the litigation exception from the requirements of announcement of a closed session and a public vote on holding a closed session, as well as the requirement that no final action be taken.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.815(l)(c) — 2 cases
Carter v. Smith, 366 S.W.3d 414 (Ky. 2012). “1981) clarified that the voidability provision “renders an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, not void but voidable.” Further, the Attorney General explained over thirty years ago, [A]ctions taken in violation of the Open Meetings Law are voidable by…”
Webster Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin, 392 S.W.3d 431 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013). “Notwithstanding this exception, the Webster County Clerk argued that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act because KRS 61.815(1)(c) provides that “[n]o final action may be taken at a closed sessionf.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.815(l)(e) — 1 case
Carter v. Smith, 366 S.W.3d 414 (Ky. 2012). “1981) clarified that the voidability provision “renders an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, not void but voidable.” Further, the Attorney General explained over thirty years ago, [A]ctions taken in violation of the Open Meetings Law are voidable by…”
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.