Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2/11/1991
Weston v. Carolina Research & Development Foundation
Citations
- 401 S.E.2d 161
- 303 S.C. 398
- 18 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1821
- 1991 S.C. LEXIS 47
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that private business enterprises \that receive payment from public bodies in return for supplying specific goods or services on an arms length basis\ are not subject to the state's sunshine laws
- finding the FOIA applies when an \organization undertakes the management of the expenditure of public funds\
- foundation operated for benefit of public university which receives and expends public funds subject to open records law
- foundation operated for benefit of public university which receives and expends public funds subject to open records law
- “[T]his decision does not mean that the [open-records act] would apply to business enterprises that receive payment from public bodies in return for supplying specific goods or services on an arms length basis.”
- The Act applies “when a block of public funds is diverted en masse from a public body to a related organization, or when the related organization undertakes management of the expenditure of public funds.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Harwell, Chandler, Littlejohn, Moore, McLeod
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Greater Houston Partnership v. Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General And Jim JenkinsTexas Supreme Court· 2015-06-29· cited 117×
- Adams County Record v. Greater North Dakota Ass'nNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1995-03-16· cited 48×
- Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 2000-11-20· cited 44×
- Telford v. Thurston County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1999-04-16· cited 40×
- Burton v. York County Sheriff's DepartmentCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-04-05· cited 29×
- State Defender Union Employees v. Legal Aid & Defender Ass'n of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals· 1998-09-29· cited 14×
- Disabato v. South Carolina Ass'n of School AdministratorsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2013-07-17· cited 11×
- Woods v. Boeing Co.D. South Carolina· 2012-01-03· cited 10×
- DomainsNewMedia.com, LLC v. Hilton Head Island-Bluffton Chamber CommerceSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2018-05-23· cited 8×
- Alyne Fortgang, Appellant, v. Woodland Park Zoo, RespondentCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2016-02-01· cited 3×
- Geauga Cty. Prosecutor's Office v. Munson Fire Dept.Ohio Court of Claims· 2023-10-17· cited 3×
- Sutler v. Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1997-01-13· cited 1×
- Opinion No. (2002)Oklahoma Attorney General Reports· 2002-08-21
- Copano NGL Services, LLC v. John Ashcraft, Individually and as Trustee for the John Ashcraft Family Trust 2012Tex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 2015-10-05
- Copano NGL Services, LLC v. John Ashcraft, Individually and as Trustee for the John Ashcraft Family Trust 2012Tex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 2015-12-29
- Thomasena Adams v. Governor McMasterSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2020-10-07
- Thomasena Adams v. Governor McMasterSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2020-12-09
- Jefferson Davis, Jr. v. SC Educational CreditCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2023-08-02
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gilmore v. IveyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1986-08-25· cited 32×
- Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1953-04-27· cited 16×
- Trustees of the Columbia Academy v. Board of TrusteesSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1974-01-28· cited 4×
- Bell Finance Co. v. South Carolina Department of Consumer AffairsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1988-11-14· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.