Amendments to 119.10

1. DeBlanco v. Ohio State Medical Bd.

   78 Ohio App. 3d 194 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 19 times

   1 more...

   By the first assignment of error, DeBlanco contends that R.C. 119.10 is unconstitutional insofar as it provides that the Attorney General of Ohio, who is by law the advisor to the administrative agency, also prosecutes cases in front of that administrative agency. R.C. 119.10 provides that:

   PAGE 197
2. Bd. of Trs. v. Lee

   189 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2016)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

   In reading the Public Records Act in pari materia, it is evident that the Legislature has imposed a good faith standard in other provisions of the Public Records Act while clearly omitting any such language in the attorney's fee provision. The language throughout chapter 119 creates a “right of access” to public records, § 119.01(2)(a), Fla. Stat., and imposes a “duty” on each agency to provide access to those public records. § 119.01(1), Fla. Stat. The fulfillment of this duty is policed primarily through civil actions, which are characterized throughout chapter 119 as being brought “to enforce the provisions” of chapter 119. §§ 119.07(1)(h), 119.11(1), (4), 119.12, Fla. Stat. Further, under section 119.10, a public officer who violates chapter 119 can personally face criminal penalties for “[k]nowingly” or “willfully and knowingly” violating the duty to allow public records to be inspected or copied. §§ 119.10(1)(b), (2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009).

   PAGE 127
3. Williams v. Ohio State Med. Bd.

   78 Ohio App. 3d 743 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 3 times

   Appellant's second assignment of error challenges the facial constitutionality of R.C. 119.10, which requires the Ohio Attorney General both to represent and advise an administrative agency, and to prosecute cases before the same agency. This court recently addressed the precise issue in DeBlanco v. Ohio State Med. Bd. (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 194, 604 N.E.2d 212, and found no facial unconstitutionality in R.C. 119.10. For the reasons set forth therein, appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.

   PAGE 747
4. Seigle v. Barry

   422 So. 2d 63 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses

   This action was commenced to enforce certain rights under Florida's Public Records Act, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1981). Appellees, professional economists, are retained by the bargaining unit for several hundred employees of the Broward County School Board to prepare for and engage in collective bargaining negotiations with the School Board. Appellees sought access to certain public records maintained on a computer. The parties stipulated that, without admitting fault under Section 119.10, appellants would permit appellees access to the computer records including copies of computer tapes. None of the 800 programs maintained by appellants could provide the information in the format desired by appellees. To remedy that problem, appellees offered to design and pay for a program that would produce the desired printout or to reimburse appellants for obtaining such a program and running it for appellees. Appellants refused, resulting in this litigation. The issues were presented to the court at a priority hearing provided for by Section 119.11(1). The circuit court ordered appellant to run a new program designed at appellees' expense which would access the computer data…

   PAGE 65
5. AGO

   91-38 (Ops. Fla. Atty. Gen. May. 30, 1991)

   Section 119.10(2), F.S., provides that any person "willfully and knowingly" violating any provision of Ch. 119, F.S., is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
6. Alberti v. Commonwealth

   No. 336 F.R. 2015 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. May. 31, 2018)

   • Motion to dismiss

   Relative to the Board's May Order dismissing Alberti's Reassessment Petitions as untimely, Alberti argued to the Board that the law does not prohibit his appeals. Section 340 of the Code provides: "Any taxpayer against whom an assessment is made may petition the [D]epartment for a reassessment pursuant to Article XXVII." 72 P.S. § 7340. However, at the time the Department's Assessment Notices were issued, Section 2702(a) of the Code stated: "A taxpayer may file a petition for reassessment with the [D]epartment within 90 days after the mailing date of the notice of assessment." 72 P.S. § 9702(a); see also Section 344 of the Code, 72 P.S. § 7344 ("The [D]epartment may collect any tax . . . [a]fter [90] days from the mailing of . . . the notice of assessment, if no petition for reassessment has been filed[.]"); Section 119.10(a) of the Department's Regulations, 61 Pa. Code § 119.10(a) ("The Department will proceed to collect any tax due . . . , unless a taxpayer has filed a petition for reassessment within 90 days after mailing of the notice by the Department.").

   PAGE 5
7. State v. Webb

   786 So. 2d 602 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 2 times

   The county court also decided that the statute had been applied to Webb in an unconstitutional manner, because the evidence showed that Webb had attempted to provide records to Watson; therefore, it was possible that merely negligent conduct was made subject to criminal penalties. Once again, we cannot agree. In the cases the court relied on for its conclusion, statutes were declared unconstitutional because the language therein permitted convictions for negligence alone rather than for intentional conduct. See State v. Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1980);State v. Winters, 346 So.2d 991 (Fla. 1977). In contrast, in the case at bar, sections 119.02 and 119.10(2) authorize a conviction for violating section 119.07 only if a defendant is found to have committed such violation "knowingly," or "willfully and knowingly," respectively. For the above reasons, the statute cannot reasonably be interpreted as allowing the jury to convict Webb for mere negligence.

   PAGE 604
8. Union Camp Corp. v. Whitman

   42 Ohio St. 2d 441 (Ohio 1975)   Cited 6 times

   "In hearing the appeal, if an adjudication hearing was conducted by the Director of Environmental Protection in accordance with Sections 119.09 and 119.10 of the Revised Code, the board is confined to the record as certified to it by the director. * * * If no adjudication hearing was conducted in accordance with Sections 119.09 and 119.10 of the Revised Code, the board shall conduct a hearing de novo on the appeal."

   PAGE 446
9. Conley v. Shank

   54 Ohio App. 3d 185 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 3 times

   "In hearing the appeal, if an adjudication hearing was conducted by the director of environmental protection in accordance with sections 119.09 and 119.10 of the Revised Code, the board is confined to the record as certified to it by the director. * * * If no adjudication hearing was conducted in accordance with sections 119.09 and 119.10 of the Revised Code, the board shall conduct a hearing de novo on the appeal."

   PAGE 187
10. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Dist. v. Shank

    58 Ohio St. 3d 16 (Ohio 1991)   Cited 16 times

    "In hearing the appeal, if an adjudication hearing was conducted by the director of environmental protection in accordance with sections 119.09 and 119.10 of the Revised Code, the board is confined to the record as certified to it by the director. The board may grant a request for the admission of additional evidence when satisfied that such additional evidence is newly discovered and could not with reasonable diligence have been ascertained prior to the hearing before the director. If no adjudication hearing was conducted in accordance with sections 119.09 and 119.10 of the Revised Code, the board shall conduct a hearing de novo on the appeal."

    PAGE 24