City of Forsyth v. Bell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that once the names of law enforcement officers, complainants, and identifying information are redacted from IA files, they no longer constitute personnel “record[s] of an individual” protected by the MPIA
• holding that records regarding complaints against State Police officers, which would be exempt from disclosure when unredacted, where no longer exempt “[a]fter the names of State Police troopers, the names of complainants, and all identifying information [we]re redacted”
• “[T]he fact that the requested records in this case might have been covered by § 10–618(f) would not preclude their status as personnel records covered by § 10–616(i).”
• \[T]he fact that the requested records in this case might have been covered by § 10-618(f) would not preclude their status as personnel records covered by § 10-616(i).\
• “[T]he fact that the requested records in this case might have been covered by § 10–618(f) would not preclude their status as personnel records covered by § 10–616(i).”
• “After the names of State Police troopers, the names of complainants, and all identifying information are redacted, the records clearly do not fall within the statutory language of ‘record[s] of an individual.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).