M4C09

Whenever a citizen has filed an action to enforce the provisions of section 286.011, or to invalidate actions taken at a meeting in violation thereof, and the court determines that such a violation was committed, it must assess reasonable attorney fees against the defendant(s). Fla. Stat. § 286.011(4) (1995). See, e.g., Mem’l Hosp-West Volusia Inc. v. News-Journal Corp., 784 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2001); Indian River Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Indian River Mem’l Hosp. Inc., 766 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

A court may order a public governmental body or its members to pay all costs and reasonable attorney fees to any party successfully establishing a purposeful or knowing violation of the Sunshine Law. Mo.Rev.Stat. §  610.027.3-.4.

Pursuant to section 551.142(b), the court may award costs of litigation and reasonable attorney fees to either a plaintiff or a defendant who substantially prevails. The award of these costs and fees is discretionary. "In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the action was brought in good faith and whether the conduct of the governmental body had a reasonable basis in law." § 551.142(b); see also Piazza v. City of Granger, 909 S.W.2d 529, 535 (Tex. App.-Austin 1995, no writ); Ferris v. Texas Bd.

In any successful action to enforce the Act, the court must award attorney fees and reasonable litigation expenses if the court determines that the violation was "without substantial justification" and no special circumstances exist. O.C.G.A. § 50-14-5(b). See, e.g., Slaughter v. Brown, 269 Ga. App. 211, 603 S.E.2d 706 (2004) (lack of bad faith does not support a finding of special circumstances sufficient to decrease the award of litigation costs); Evans Cty. Board of Comm'rs. v. Claxton Enter., 255 Ga, App.

Pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 2-3-221, a petitioner who prevails in an action to enforce constitutional access rights (open meetings or open records rights) may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. Courts routinely award such fees and costs particularly when the decision to close the meeting is arbitrary or made without regard to the obvious provisions of the Montana open meetings law and the Constitution.

The Open Meetings Act allows a court to “award reasonable attorney fees and court costs to a successful plaintiff.” Utah Code Ann. § 52-4-303(4). The award of fees and costs is discretionary, not mandatory.

The court may also "order payment of reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party . . . ." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-12(c).

Court may award court costs and attorney’s fees to successful plaintiff. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1414(3).

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

There is no specific provision for court costs and attorney fees in the law. Thus, fees and costs issues will be determined by other applicable provisions of the Idaho Code and Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs should review all such statutes and rules.