In the case State ex rel. Crilley v. Lowellville Bd. of Edn., 2021-Ohio-3333, the Seventh District Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in denying a citizen’s request for attorney fees in an action in which the citizens claimed that the Board of Education violated the Open Meetings Act.
Here, the citizens argued that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to properly provide notice of a special board meeting, as required by statute. While the trial court agreed that the lack of notice did violate the Open Meetings Act, the court denied the citizen’s request for attorney fees and declaratory relief and declined to invalidate a resolution that was adopted during the improper special meeting.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying the citizen’s requested attorney fees, arguing that a two-prong test set forth in R.C. 121.22(I) must be followed to make a determination of such fees. The Court further held that the trial court’s refusal to void the Board’s improper resolution was moot.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.