The seminal case in Oklahoma on police dash and body cameras. Led to numerous changes in the ORA for several years after this decision.

Documents filed with Court Clerk are public records and subject to disclosure under the ORA. Sealing a public record should be very rare and must follow the strict parameters of the law that require it to be “necessary in the interests of justice to remove the material from the public record.”

A private for-profit business cannot use the ORA to obtain copies of a county land records for resale - The County Clerk is specifically prohibited from providing that information from the land records, if the records will be used in that capacity.

A private company is not a "public body" - therefore, not subject to the ORA. This is true even if the company has public officials appointed by the Governor and Legislature on its Board.

State employee birth dates and identification numbers are not subject to the ORA - as it is an unwanted invasion of privacy, as it relates to the ORA. NOTE: This case overrules Tulsa Tribune Co. v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Com'n., 1986 OK 24, 735 P.2d 548. Refer also to 2009 OK AG 33.

Providing requested documents after filing the ORA lawsuit does not moot the issue. Bondsman had requested warrants from Sheriff and was entitled to a hearing on the injunctive and declaratory relief requested based on the Sheriff's violation of the ORA. Also, it holds "shall" is mandatory.

The ORA contains no provision dictating the manner in which to make a request for inspection of a record. "Record" is broadly defined under the ORA. Audit reports fit the definition of record.

Law enforcement or OHP manuals may not be categorically withheld. LE Agency has a duty to produce all non-law enforcement records that are "reasonably segregable" from the portions that may be withheld. Public interest may also outweigh reason for denial and must be disclosed.

Federal court case relating to Shero v. Grand Savings Bank, 2007 OK 24, 161 P.3d 298.

The company was allowed to terminate an employee who refused to dismiss an ORA lawsuit, concerning city council meeting packets - which are subject to disclosure pursuant to the ORA. NOTE: See related cases Shero v. Grove (Federal Court & Delaware Cty Dist Ct).

District court case where Judge Denney held that pre-meeting city council packets are subject to the ORA. He awarded Shero attorney fees against the City of Grove. NOTE: This case is related to Shero v. Grand Savings Bank, 2007 OK 24, 161 P.3d 298.

Audio recording of DPS Implied Consent Hearings are "facts concerning the arrest" - therefore, subject to the ORA. NOTE: This ruling led to DPS (via the Oklahoma Legislature) amending the law making an exemption specifically for DPS/OHP which lasted until the 2011 Ward & Lee case.

If a closed record does not contain a waiver for exemption provided by the ORA, then the record will remain excluded from public knowledge.

Although the definition of “public body” contained within the ORA does not encompass judges or justices generally, the ORA's definition of “records” does include documents filed of record in court proceedings.

Judicial approval is required for the release of records exempted from general confidentiality requirements.