In an action against a public governmental body for penalties under the Sunshine Law, the elements include receipt of the request by the body\u2019s custodian of records. For the prosecuting attorney\u2019s office, statute provides that the prosecuting attorney or a designee is the custodian, and substantial compliance with that element is not sufficient. Evidence showed that the recipient of appellant\u2019s request was a paralegal, who assembled documents in response to Sunshine Law Requests, but not the custodian. \u201c[S]imply serving as the contact person on prior Sunshine Law requests is an insufficient basis to find apparent authority.\u201d Judgment for respondent affirmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Patrick Starr, Maurice Charles, and Lee Francis vs. Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney<\/em><\/a> If you would like to speak to an attorney, call us at 816-524-4949 or visit our website <\/a>to schedule a consultation.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In an action against a public governmental body for penalties under the Sunshine Law, the elements include receipt of the request by the body\u2019s custodian of records. For the prosecuting attorney\u2019s office, statute provides that the prosecuting attorney or a … Continue reading
(Overview Summary)<\/a>
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD83634<\/p>\n\n\n\n