R5D04A

Florida trial and appellate courts may, and have, addressed on numerous occasions the issue of whether access to public records has been wrongfully denied.  See, e.g., Warden v. Bennett, 340 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

A court has held that a Sunshine Law request was properly denied where the requesting individual asked for the governmental body to create a new, customized record, as opposed to requesting access to existing records in the possession of the governmental body. Jones v. Jackson County Circuit Court, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 231 (Mo.Ct.App. Feb. 8, 2005).

Presumably.

The courts regularly examine whether an ageny's denial of a request is improper.

A district court may consider whether there has been a denial of access, and whether the fees for the records are excessive and constitute denial.

This will be addressed by Court.

The court addresses the issue of denial de novo. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-15(b).

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

“Section 552.321 confers upon the trial court the authority to issue a writ of mandamus in three circumstances: where a governmental body refuses to request an attorney general's decision on whether information is public; where the governmental body refuses to supply public information; and where a governing body refuses to supply information that the attorney general has determined is public information not excepted from disclosure.” Thomas v. Cornyn, 71 S.W.3d 473, 481 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.); see Loving v. City of Houston, 282 S.W.3d 555, 561 (Tex.

If the Court determines that the public official was justified in refusing to make the requested record available, he shall return the item to the public official without disclosing its content and shall enter an order supporting the decision refusing disclosure. Idaho Code § 9-344(2).