Case was dismissed as moot, since the Appellee/Defendant no longer possessed the requested records.

The Oklahoma Election Code, not the ORA, provides the exclusive means of access to election materials, specifically the retention of cast ballots.

Dealt with protective orders over records, so that the records would not be subject to disclosure pursuant to the ORA. NOTE: Overruled by a 1988 statutory change; see also Okla. Public Employees Ass'n v. St.

Publicly funded spending reports were not exempt from disclosure, when lacking evidence showing an articulated statutory exception and when promised by a state agency to remain confidential.

Governor's records pertaining to his expenses of the legislatively appropriated funds for the Mansion Account are not required to be kept open for public inspection pursuant to the ORA, except the Annual Report.

If the state law is silent and the city charter allows for certain records to remain public, then the city must allow those records to be accessed by the public.

Good discussion highlighting the razor thin line that exists on how descriptive a public body must be when giving notice to the public about possible actions the public body may take at a public meeting. A read of the majority and the dissent is a must read.

Cleveland Cty District Court found the OTA violated the Open Meetings Act. OTA appealed to the Supreme Court unsuccessfully arguing that only the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over them. Supreme Court ruled against the OTA finding the issue moot.

Supreme Court discusses at length what "willful" means in terms of a violation of the OMA. The majority seems to ignore precedent and creates a new analysis. A dissent by Justice Dana Kuehn lays out the previous test and questions the failure of the majority to follow precedent.

A city agenda that only listed adopting or rejecting a budget did not provide sufficient notice for the city to amend the budget. Because agenda was deceptively vague and likely to mislead, it was a willful violation of the OMA. and the action taken was invalid.

Addresses mootness and standing of OMA lawsuits. Wording indicates a bias towards government and general distaste for OMA plaintiffs. NOTE: This is an unpublished case and seems inconsistent with published Rabin v. Bartlesville Redevelopment Trust, 2013 OK CIV APP 72, 308 P.3d 191.

Public body is required to take minutes during executive sessions; however, failure to do so will not invalidate action taken by the public body, as long as the action was taken publicly. Minutes are only required to be made public after a willful violation of the OMA.

Federal Court held is not a violation of the 1st Amendment to prohibit a person from speaking at a public meeting, giving them a time limit, or requiring the person to speak only during the public comment portion of the meeting. NOTE: See also Warden v. City of Grove, 44 F.Supp.3d 1098.

The OSSAA was expected to behave in a manner that a state agency would, by adhering to requirements provided by Oklahoma statute. Furthermore, the OSSAA Constitution specifies that its meetings shall be held pursuant to the "Open Meeting Law of the State of Oklahoma."