Atlanta Journal v. Hill

From Sunshine Review

---

This WikiFOIA article is a stub. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by either expanding this article or going to the Sunshine litigation project page and helping us expand other articles.

Atlanta Journal vs. Hill Number: 257 Ga. 398 Year: 1987 State: Georgia Other lawsuits in Georgia Other lawsuits in 1987 Precedents include:

Contents 1 Important precedents 2 Background 3 Supporters of the FOIA request 4 Criticisms of the FOIA request 5 Ruling of the court 6 Associated cases 7 See Also 8 External links 9 References

State Sunshine Laws
State Sunshine laws State Open Meeting Laws Transparency headlines Statutory changes Notable FOIA requests How to ask for records
State sunshine lawsuits
State court cases E-mail access Private agency, public dollars
The WikiFOIA portal

Atlanta Journal v. Hill was a case before the Georgia Supreme Court in 1987 concerning open meetings laws and their application to municipalities.

[edit] Important precedents

[edit] Background

Atlanta Journal v. Hill, 257 Ga. 398 (1987) (Hunt, J.): Suit for access to meetings of the Administrative Review Panel appointed by Mayor Young to conduct a review of actions taken by City officials in response to Alice Bond's allegations. The Court declared for the first time that "the Act must be broadly construed to effect its remedial and protective purposes," which the Court described as follows: "We note that the Act was enacted in the public interest to protect the public - both individuals and the public generally - from 'closed door' politics and the potential abuse of individuals and the misuse of power such policies entail." However, the Court held that the Act does not cover groups which although they function on behalf of government have no official authority. The Court held that the Administrative Review Panel had no such authority, despite its purported subpoena powers, because the delegation to it of subpoena powers was unconstitutional. Justice Marshall concurred specially, writing that the Open Meetings Act does not apply to advisory committees. [Note that the Act has since been amended to expressly include agency committees.] Justice Gregory concurred in the judgment only.^[1]

[edit] Supporters of the FOIA request

[edit] Criticisms of the FOIA request

[edit] Ruling of the court

[edit] Associated cases

[edit] See Also

• Georgia Open Meetings Act
• Georgia Open Records Act

[edit] External links

[edit] References

1. ↑ Synopsis of Georgia Open Meetings Act Cases