Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 61

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.848

Enforcement by judicial action -- De novo determination in appeal of

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Attorney General's decision -- Voidability of action not substantially complying -- Awards in willful violation actions. (1) The Circuit Court of the county where the public agency has its principal place of business or where the alleged violation occurred shall have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of KRS 61.805 to 61.850, as they pertain to that public agency, by injunction or other appropriate order on application of any person. (2) A person alleging a violation of the provisions of KRS 61.805 to 61.850 shall not have to exhaust his remedies under KRS 61.846 before filing suit in a Circuit Court. However, he shall file suit within sixty (60) days from his receipt of the written denial referred to in subsections (1) and (2) of KRS 61.846 or, if the public agency refuses to provide a written denial, within sixty (60) days from the date the written complaint was submitted to the presiding officer of the public agency. (3) In an appeal of an Attorney General's decision, where the appeal is properly filed pursuant to subsection (4)(a) of KRS 61.846, the court shall determine the matter de novo. (4) Except as otherwise provided by law or rule of court, proceedings arising under this section take precedence on the docket over all other causes and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date. (5) Any rule, resolution, regulation, ordinance, or other formal action of a public agency without substantial compliance with the requirements of KRS 61.810, 61.815, 61.820, and KRS 61.823 shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction. (6) Any person who prevails against any agency in any action in the courts regarding a violation of KRS 61.805 to 61.850, where the violation is found to be willful, may be awarded costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with the legal action. In addition, it shall be within the discretion of the court to award the person an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) for each instance in which the court finds a violation. Attorneys' fees, costs, and awards under this subsection shall be paid by the agency responsible for the violation. Effective: July 14, 1992 History: Created 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 162, sec. 8, July 14, 1992.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Floyd County Board of Education v. Ratliff
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Floyd County Board of Education v. Ratliff (1997) ky · cites it 8× “KRS 61.848, in pertinent part, states that where alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act occur, the circuit court shall have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of KRS 61.”
Yeoman v. Com., Health Policy Bd. (1998) ky · cites it 4× “848 and the HPB failed to respond as required by the Act in those same provisions, then the HPB would have been per se wilful under KRS § 61.848(6). Governmental bodies cannot ignore the dictates of the Act with impunity; however, in the same vein, parties seeking to recover…”
Carter v. Smith (2012) ky · cites it 2× “” KRS 61.848. Carter argues the Board’s actions, even if not in strict compliance with the Open Meetings Act, should be upheld because the Board substantially complied with the law when it voted on his resignation and consulting contract in open session per the requisites of KRS…”
Knox County v. Hammons (2004) ky · cites it 2× “820 is violated, KRS 61.848(5) provides that any resulting ordinance is voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Webster County Board of Education v. Franklin (2013) kyctapp · cites it 3× “The trial court then voided the Board’s action under KRS 61.848 and rejected the remedial action by the Board at the January 9, 2012, meeting to retroactively meet statutory prerequisites.”
Board of Commissioners of the City of Danville, Kentucky v. Advocate Communications, Inc. D/B/A the Advocate-Messenger (2017) ky “Under KRS 61.848(6), • the court may award costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to any person who prevails against an agency “where the violation is found to be willful.”
Howard v. City of Independence (2005) kyctapp “KRS 61.848(5). Howard contends that the circuit court improperly “changed” the findings and conclusions made by the City, which were the basis for the City’s firing of Howard.”
Wells v. City of Bowling Green (2011) kyctapp “846(1) which begins with submission of a written complaint to the commission proposing a remedy for the alleged error.”
Campbell County Board of Education v. Ken Moellman, Sr. (2023) kyctapp · cites it 7× “Both the Board and the KSBA argue that KRS 61.848(5) does not authorize a court to void actions taken in public meetings which violate KRS 61.”
Lincoln Trail Grain Growers Association v. Meade County Fiscal Court (2021) kyctapp · cites it 6× “” KRS 61.848(1) (emphasis added). Although exceptions to the open meeting requirements are provided by the provisions of KRS 61.”
J. Albert Harrison v. Oldham County Ethics Commission (2024) kyctapp · cites it 5× “846(4)(a) and KRS 61.848 challenging the Attorney General’s decision and seeking costs, attorneys’ fees, and penalties pursuant to KRS 61.”
Terri Bradshaw v. Capital Community economic/industrial Development Authority (2025) kyctapp · cites it 4× “Under KRS 61.848(5), a court -26- of appropriate jurisdiction has authority to remedy a situation where a public agency takes formal action without substantial compliance with the requirements of KRS 61.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.848(1) — 4 cases
Floyd County Board of Education v. Ratliff (1997) ky “KRS 61.848, in pertinent part, states that where alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act occur, the circuit court shall have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of KRS 61.”
University of Kentucky v. Lachin Hatemi, M.D. (2021) kyctapp
Lincoln Trail Grain Growers Association v. Meade County Fiscal Court (2021) kyctapp “” KRS 61.848(1) (emphasis added). Although exceptions to the open meeting requirements are provided by the provisions of KRS 61.”
Oliver v. Lexington Fayette Urban County Government (2020) kyed
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.848(2) — 1 case
Wells v. City of Bowling Green (2011) kyctapp “846(1) which begins with submission of a written complaint to the commission proposing a remedy for the alleged error.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.848(5) — 8 cases
Knox County v. Hammons (2004) ky “820 is violated, KRS 61.848(5) provides that any resulting ordinance is voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Floyd County Board of Education v. Ratliff (1997) ky “KRS 61.848, in pertinent part, states that where alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act occur, the circuit court shall have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of KRS 61.”
Webster County Board of Education v. Franklin (2013) kyctapp “The trial court then voided the Board’s action under KRS 61.848 and rejected the remedial action by the Board at the January 9, 2012, meeting to retroactively meet statutory prerequisites.”
Howard v. City of Independence (2005) kyctapp “KRS 61.848(5). Howard contends that the circuit court improperly “changed” the findings and conclusions made by the City, which were the basis for the City’s firing of Howard.”
Campbell County Board of Education v. Ken Moellman, Sr. (2023) kyctapp “Both the Board and the KSBA argue that KRS 61.848(5) does not authorize a court to void actions taken in public meetings which violate KRS 61.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.848(6) — 8 cases
Yeoman v. Com., Health Policy Bd. (1998) ky “848 and the HPB failed to respond as required by the Act in those same provisions, then the HPB would have been per se wilful under KRS § 61.848(6). Governmental bodies cannot ignore the dictates of the Act with impunity; however, in the same vein, parties seeking to recover…”
Board of Commissioners of the City of Danville, Kentucky v. Advocate Communications, Inc. D/B/A the Advocate-Messenger (2017) ky “Under KRS 61.848(6), • the court may award costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to any person who prevails against an agency “where the violation is found to be willful.”
J. Albert Harrison v. Oldham County Ethics Commission (2024) kyctapp “846(4)(a) and KRS 61.848 challenging the Attorney General’s decision and seeking costs, attorneys’ fees, and penalties pursuant to KRS 61.”
Campbell County Board of Education v. Ken Moellman, Sr. (2023) kyctapp “Both the Board and the KSBA argue that KRS 61.848(5) does not authorize a court to void actions taken in public meetings which violate KRS 61.”
Lincoln Trail Grain Growers Association v. Meade County Fiscal Court (2021) kyctapp “” KRS 61.848(1) (emphasis added). Although exceptions to the open meeting requirements are provided by the provisions of KRS 61.”
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.