Hallas v. FOIC
This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Pleaseemail us if you would like to suggest an update.
 | This Open Records and Transparency Project article is a sprout. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by expanding this article. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunshine Laws |
| How to Make Records Requests |
| Sunshine Litigation |
| Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
| Sunshine Nuances |
| Deliberative Process Exemption |
Hallas v. FOIC was a case before theConnecticut Court of Appeals in 1989 concerning the applicability of open records law to individuals contracted by public agencies.
Important precedents
This case affirmed the decision ofBoard of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOIC and emphasized that all 4 points must be met for an organization to be considered a public body.[1]
Background
- Robinson and Cole is a law firm located in the city of Hartford. They have acted as the bonds counsel for the town of Windsor since 1967.
- On February 12, 1985, Hallas submitted a records request to the firm seeking to inspect documents relating to bonds issued by the city between 1966-1983.
- The firm denied the request, claiming, "(1) certain documents were protected from disclosure because of the attorney-client privilege, (2) the firm was not the proper place to make their request, and (3) the documents were not public records."
- The Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission and the trial court ruled in favor of the firm.
- Hallas appealed the decisions.[1]
Ruling of the court
The Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission and the trial court ruled in favor of the law firm, finding that it did not meet the four part test established byBoard of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOIC.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, granting judgment in favor of the law firm. The court citedBoard of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOIC, stating that any organization must meet all four criteria in order to be considered a public body under the law. The court went on to find that the law firm was not in any way regulated more heavily due to its duties than any other state law firm. Thus, the firm failed one portion of the test and could not be considered a public body.[1]
