610.023. Records of governmental bodies to be in care of custodian, duties — records may be copied but not removed, exception, procedure — denial of access, procedure. — 1. Each public governmental body is to appoint a custodian who is to be responsible for the maintenance of that body's records. The identity and location of a public governmental body's custodian is to be made available upon request.
2. Each public governmental body shall make available for inspection and copying by the public of that body's public records. No person shall remove original public records from the office of a public governmental body or its custodian without written permission of the designated custodian. No public governmental body shall, after August 28, 1998, grant to any person or entity, whether by contract, license or otherwise, the exclusive right to access and disseminate any public record unless the granting of such right is necessary to facilitate coordination with, or uniformity among, industry regulators having similar authority.
3. Each request for access to a public record shall be acted upon as soon as possible, but in no event later than the end of the third business day following the date the request is received by the custodian of records of a public governmental body. If records are requested in a certain format, the public body shall provide the records in the requested format, if such format is available. If access to the public record is not granted immediately, the custodian shall give a detailed explanation of the cause for further delay and the place and earliest time and date that the record will be available for inspection. This period for document production may exceed three days for reasonable cause.
4. If a request for access is denied, the custodian shall provide, upon request, a written statement of the grounds for such denial. Such statement shall cite the specific provision of law under which access is denied and shall be furnished to the requester no later than the end of the third business day following the date that the request for the statement is received.
Notes of Decisions
Rachal Laut, f/k/a Rachal Govro, & John M. Soellner v. City of Arnold, 491 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. 2016).
· cites it 2× “011 (“Except as otherwise provided by law, … all public records of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in sections 610.023 to 610.026[.]”). Accordingly, the trial court ordered the disclosure of the report with a portion…”
State ex rel. Daly v. Info. Tech. Servs. Agency of St. Louis, 417 S.W.3d 804 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “Section 610.023, 3 titled “Records of governmental bodies to be in care of custodian, duties-records may be copied but not removed, exception, procedure-denial of access, procedure,” provides: 1.”
Anderson v. Vill. of Jacksonville, 103 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “The custodian of records is identified by section 610.023, RSMo 2000, as the single recipient for all requests for access to a governmental body’s records.”
Pennington v. Dobbs, 235 S.W.3d 77 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Under Section 610.023, as previously noted, the custodian of records is the single recipient for all requests for a governmental body’s records.”
Telester Ameena Powell v. The City of Kansas City, Missouri, 472 S.W.3d 219 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “265, the "City was required to respond in writing to her proposed alternative location for condemnation and that the City violated § 610.023 of the Sunshine Law by failing *226 to produce such a document for her inspection within three days of her November 2, 2011 letter.”
Deaton v. Kidd, 932 S.W.2d 804 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “Kidd, the Direetor/Revisor of Statutes, appeals the judgment that he purposely violated a section of the Sunshine Law, § 610.023, RSMo. (1994) 1 by refusing to provide respondent with a copy of the Missouri Revised Statutes on a reel of computer tape.”
Adams v. City of Manchester, 242 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “” Citizens also claim Defendants failed to disclose the specific plans, drawings, memorandums, maps, and minutes they reviewed prior to voting to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan when Citizens requested copies of such pursuant to Missouri’s Sunshine Law, Section 610.023. On…”
News-Press & Gazette Co. v. Cathcart, 974 S.W.2d 576 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “News-Press made oral and written requests for access to the autopsy report for inspection and copying in accordance with section 610.023 on July 25, 1997. Dr. Catheart made a timely denial of News-Press’s requests contending that as medical examiner, he was not a public…”
Bauer v. Kincaid, 759 F. Supp. 575 (W.D. Mo. 1991).
“2 of the Missouri Open Records Act or the “Sunshine Law” provides that all public records of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in § 610.023 to § 610.026, except as otherwise provided by law.”
Jones v. Hous. Auth. of Kansas City, 118 S.W.3d 669 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
“In a January 23, 2001 letter in response to counsel for HAKC, Jones asserted that HAKC was in violation of § 610.023 by failing to respond to his initial request within three business days.”
Aaron M. Malin v. Cole Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney, 565 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).
“all public records of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in sections 610.023 to 610.026 . . . .” § 610.”
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.