(A) All records are the property of the public office concerned and shall not be removed, destroyed, mutilated, transferred, or otherwise damaged or disposed of, in whole or in part, except as provided by law or under the rules adopted by the records commissions provided for under sections 149.38 to 149.42 of the Revised Code or under the records programs established by the boards of trustees of state-supported institutions of higher education under section 149.33 of the Revised Code. Those records shall be delivered by outgoing officials and employees to their successors and shall not be otherwise removed, destroyed, mutilated, or transferred unlawfully.
(B) Any person who is aggrieved by the removal, destruction, mutilation, or transfer of, or by other damage to or disposition of a record in violation of division (A) of this section, or by threat of such removal, destruction, mutilation, transfer, or other damage to or disposition of such a record, may commence either or both of the following in the court of common pleas of the county in which division (A) of this section allegedly was violated or is threatened to be violated:
(1) A civil action for injunctive relief to compel compliance with division (A) of this section, and to obtain an award of the reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the person in the civil action;
(2) A civil action to recover a forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars for each violation, but not to exceed a cumulative total of ten thousand dollars, regardless of the number of violations, and to obtain an award of the reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the person in the civil action not to exceed the forfeiture amount recovered.
(C)(1) A person is not aggrieved by a violation of division (A) of this section if clear and convincing evidence shows that the request for a record was contrived as a pretext to create potential liability under this section. The commencement of a civil action under division (B) of this section waives any right under this chapter to decline to divulge the purpose for requesting the record, but only to the extent needed to evaluate whether the request was contrived as a pretext to create potential liability under this section.
(2) In a civil action under division (B) of this section, if clear and convincing evidence shows that the request for a record was a pretext to create potential liability under this section, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to any defendant or defendants in the action.
(D) Once a person recovers a forfeiture in a civil action commenced under division (B)(2) of this section, no other person may recover a forfeiture under that division for a violation of division (A) of this section involving the same record, regardless of the number of persons aggrieved by a violation of division (A) of this section or the number of civil actions commenced under this section.
(E) A civil action for injunctive relief under division (B)(1) of this section or a civil action to recover a forfeiture under division (B)(2) of this section shall be commenced within five years after the day in which division (A) of this section was allegedly violated or was threatened to be violated.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80
cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Kish v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St. 3d 162 (Ohio 2006).
Kish v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St. 3d 162 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 35דXVIII(6), we accepted these questions of state law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: “What constitutes a ‘record’ as that term is used in Ohio Rev.Code § 149.351?” 1 Kish v. *163 Akron, 102 Ohio St.”
Keller v. City of Columbus, 797 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio 2003). · cites it 26דThe appellate court reversed part of the trial court’s judgment, holding that “to the extent the amended complaint has alleged that the city may destroy public records in violation of public records laws and/or commission rules and has requested an injunction compelling the city…”
Rhodes v. City of New Philadelphia, 2011 Ohio 3279 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 18דIntroduction {¶ 1} The issue in this appeal is the meaning of the term “aggrieved” as it is used in R.C. 149.351. 1 The question presented is whether a party automatically *305 becomes aggrieved as a matter of law when his request for a public record is denied due to an improper…”
Mayer v. Bodnar, 2022 Ohio 4705 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 24דIn Count Two of the complaint, Mayer alleged “Unauthorized Destruction or Failure to Produce Public Record” in violation of R.C. 149.351. In Count Three, Mayer alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress by Bodnar and the Trustees.”
State Ex Rel. DiFranco v. City of South Euclid, 2014 Ohio 538 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 6ד351, because he had not really had the goal of accessing records that had been unlawfully destroyed; instead, Rhodes’s only goal was to reap the windfall of an award of civil forfeiture.”
State Ex Rel. Keller v. Columbus, 843 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8ד12(B)(6) motion to dismiss: (1) declaratory judgment premised on allegations that an existing CBA conflicts with or fails to comport with the dictates of the PRA, but not to include appellants’ claim for declaratory judgment regarding the negotiation of a future agreement…”
Patriot Water Treatment, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Resources, 2013 Ohio 5398 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 12דThe court dismissed the complaint based on its conclusion that: (1) Patriot had failed to state a spoliation claim, and (2) the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over Patriot's claim that ODNR violated R.C. 149.351, Ohio's public records retention statute.”
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 899 N.E.2d 961 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 3ד“In recognition that the right of access is a hollow one if records are not preserved for review, R.C. 149.351 proscribes the destruction, mutilation, removal, transfer, or disposal of or damage to public records and imposes penalties for violation of the law * * Id.”
State ex rel. Culgan v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor, 2024 Ohio 4715 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 4דUnder R.C. 149.351, such a claim must be brought in the common pleas court of the county in which the alleged improper destruction of public records occurred.”
State ex rel. Rhodes v. Chillicothe, 2013 Ohio 1858 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 9דThe former version of the statute, in effect at the time this suit was filed, provided that “[a]ny person who is aggrieved by the * * * [improper disposition] of a record *** may commence” an action for injunctive relief and/or a “civil action to recover a forfeiture in the…”
The State Ex Rel. Gadell-newton v. Husted Et Al., 2018 Ohio 1854 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 2דAs in the letters, she alleged that digital ballot images are public records that under R.C. 149.351(A) may not be removed, destroyed, or disposed of and that elections officials are under an affirmative duty, imposed by 52 U.”
Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, 865 N.E.2d 1275 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 2ד57 of the Revised Code shall forfeit to the borrower the amount of interest paid by the borrower’ ” [emphasis added in Rosette]) and R.C. 149.351(B)(2) (“ ‘any person who is aggrieved by the removal, destruction, mutilation, or transfer of * * * a [public] record, may commence *…”
Keller v. City of Columbus, 797 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio 2003). “The appellate court reversed part of the trial court’s judgment, holding that “to the extent the amended complaint has alleged that the city may destroy public records in violation of public records laws and/or commission rules and has requested an injunction compelling the city…”
Rhodes v. City of New Philadelphia, 2011 Ohio 3279 (Ohio 2011). “Introduction {¶ 1} The issue in this appeal is the meaning of the term “aggrieved” as it is used in R.C. 149.351. 1 The question presented is whether a party automatically *305 becomes aggrieved as a matter of law when his request for a public record is denied due to an improper…”
State Ex Rel. Keller v. Columbus, 843 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “12(B)(6) motion to dismiss: (1) declaratory judgment premised on allegations that an existing CBA conflicts with or fails to comport with the dictates of the PRA, but not to include appellants’ claim for declaratory judgment regarding the negotiation of a future agreement…”
Mayer v. Bodnar, 2022 Ohio 4705 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “In Count Two of the complaint, Mayer alleged “Unauthorized Destruction or Failure to Produce Public Record” in violation of R.C. 149.351. In Count Three, Mayer alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress by Bodnar and the Trustees.”
Kish v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St. 3d 162 (Ohio 2006). “XVIII(6), we accepted these questions of state law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: “What constitutes a ‘record’ as that term is used in Ohio Rev.Code § 149.351?” 1 Kish v. *163 Akron, 102 Ohio St.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 149.351(B) — 29 cases
Keller v. City of Columbus, 797 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio 2003). “The appellate court reversed part of the trial court’s judgment, holding that “to the extent the amended complaint has alleged that the city may destroy public records in violation of public records laws and/or commission rules and has requested an injunction compelling the city…”
Kish v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St. 3d 162 (Ohio 2006). “XVIII(6), we accepted these questions of state law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: “What constitutes a ‘record’ as that term is used in Ohio Rev.Code § 149.351?” 1 Kish v. *163 Akron, 102 Ohio St.”
Rhodes v. City of New Philadelphia, 2011 Ohio 3279 (Ohio 2011). “Introduction {¶ 1} The issue in this appeal is the meaning of the term “aggrieved” as it is used in R.C. 149.351. 1 The question presented is whether a party automatically *305 becomes aggrieved as a matter of law when his request for a public record is denied due to an improper…”
State Ex Rel. Keller v. Columbus, 843 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “12(B)(6) motion to dismiss: (1) declaratory judgment premised on allegations that an existing CBA conflicts with or fails to comport with the dictates of the PRA, but not to include appellants’ claim for declaratory judgment regarding the negotiation of a future agreement…”
State ex rel. Culgan v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor, 2024 Ohio 4715 (Ohio 2024). “Under R.C. 149.351, such a claim must be brought in the common pleas court of the county in which the alleged improper destruction of public records occurred.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 149.351(B)(1) — 5 cases
Kish v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St. 3d 162 (Ohio 2006). “XVIII(6), we accepted these questions of state law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: “What constitutes a ‘record’ as that term is used in Ohio Rev.Code § 149.351?” 1 Kish v. *163 Akron, 102 Ohio St.”
Keller v. City of Columbus, 797 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio 2003). “The appellate court reversed part of the trial court’s judgment, holding that “to the extent the amended complaint has alleged that the city may destroy public records in violation of public records laws and/or commission rules and has requested an injunction compelling the city…”
State ex rel. Rhodes v. Chillicothe, 2013 Ohio 1858 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “The former version of the statute, in effect at the time this suit was filed, provided that “[a]ny person who is aggrieved by the * * * [improper disposition] of a record *** may commence” an action for injunctive relief and/or a “civil action to recover a forfeiture in the…”
Kish v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St. 3d 162 (Ohio 2006). “XVIII(6), we accepted these questions of state law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: “What constitutes a ‘record’ as that term is used in Ohio Rev.Code § 149.351?” 1 Kish v. *163 Akron, 102 Ohio St.”
Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, 865 N.E.2d 1275 (Ohio 2007). “57 of the Revised Code shall forfeit to the borrower the amount of interest paid by the borrower’ ” [emphasis added in Rosette]) and R.C. 149.351(B)(2) (“ ‘any person who is aggrieved by the removal, destruction, mutilation, or transfer of * * * a [public] record, may commence *…”
State ex rel. Rhodes v. Chillicothe, 2013 Ohio 1858 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “The former version of the statute, in effect at the time this suit was filed, provided that “[a]ny person who is aggrieved by the * * * [improper disposition] of a record *** may commence” an action for injunctive relief and/or a “civil action to recover a forfeiture in the…”
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.