2. Will the court give priority to the pleading?

Yes. A preliminary hearing on a complaint filed pursuant to the Alabama Open Meetings Act must be held no later than 10 business days after the date of filing of the defendant's initial response to the complaint, or, if no response is filed, no later than 17 business days after the filing of the complaint, "or on the nearest day thereafter as the court shall fix, having regard to the speediest possible determination of the cause consistent with the rights of the parties." Ala. Code § 36-25A-9(a).

The general provisions for temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions, when immediate and irreparable injury can be averred, are available in the appropriate case under Rule 65(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Ala. Code § 36-25A-9(e); see also Birmingham News Co. v. Cooper, 13 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1655 (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Cnty., Ala., Equity Div., Jan. 8, 1990) (granting TRO; enjoining defendants from denying access to record of votes taken in wrongfully closed meeting; imminent election of candidates for public office justified granting TRO)

In the more typical case, the trial court will grant a request for an early hearing (usually within a very few days) on the motion for preliminary injunction, with notice to the individuals and/or agency being sued. The parties often agree to bypass the preliminary injunction hearing and proceed directly to a hearing on the merits of the request for permanent injunction.

There are court procedures for obtaining temporary injunctive relief or other expedited consideration of pleadings concerning open meetings violations, but not specially applicable to such cases.

The OML does not contain any express expedited procedures for reviewing OML actions. Combining the special action with a request for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction will expedite the procedure.

The FOIA requires the court to “fix and assess a day the petition is to be heard” within seven days of its filing. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107(b). This provision is probably unenforceable in light of a court’s inherent authority to control its docket. See McConnell v. State, 227 Ark. 988, 302 S.W.2d 805 (1957). In Orsini v. State, 340 Ark. 665, 13 S.W.3d 167 (2000), the Supreme Court left open the question whether Section 25-19-107(b) “requires that a hearing be set within seven days of the FOIA request or actually conducted within that time frame,” as the circuit court had done neither. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that “this section of the FOIA sets a policy in favor of expeditious hearings on all FOIA requests.” Id. at 668, 13 S.W.3d at 169.

Both the Bagley-Keene and Brown Acts provide for writs of mandate or injunctions, which are typically handled in an accelerated manner or are afforded some priority over other civil actions in the court system. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 11130.3 (Bagley-Keene Act), 54960.1 (Brown Act). Unreasonable delays in bring an action to completion, even if timely filed, may justify dismissal of a Brown Act claim under a latches defense. See, e.g., Julian Volunteer Fire Co. Assn. v. Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection Dist., 62 Cal. App. 5th 583, 602-606, 276 Cal. Rptr. 3d 849 (2021)(dismissing timely filed Brown Act claim under latches defense where petitioner did not seek ruling on claim until nearly one-year after filing complaint to prejudice of county).

A motion for preliminary injunction shall be set for hearing at the earliest possible time and take precedence over all matters except similar older matters.

“Any appeal taken pursuant to this section shall be privileged in respect to its assignment for trial over all other actions except writs of habeas corpus and actions brought by or on behalf of the state, including information on the relation of private individuals.” Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-206(d).

Priority is only given to a pleading/action if it seeks injunctive relief.

Not specifically addressed.

There is no authority addressing whether pleadings are to be given priority.

The Act does not specifically require a court to give priority to litigation to enforce the Act, but expedited treatment may be sought and is often afforded depending upon the facts of the case.

No.

Unlike Idaho’s Public Records Act, there is no requirement that a Court give priority to a lawsuit involving the Open Meeting Law. If immediate injunctive relief is also sought, however, at least that portion of the action should receive priority attention from the Court.

The Open Meetings Act contains no provision directing a court to expedite proceedings brought under the Act. It may be advisable to call a court’s attention to the expediting provision in the Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/11(h), and suggest that the same policy should apply to proceedings brought under the Open Meetings Act.

Yes. Ind. Code § 5-14-1.5-7(h) provides that a court shall expedite the hearing of an action filed under this section. Additionally, actions for injunctive relief typically have priority on a court’s docket.

No docket priority.

Yes. K.S.A. 75-4320a(f) provides that action shall take precedence over all other cases except as otherwise provided by law.

The court is instructed to give the action priority: "Except as otherwise provided by law or rule of court, proceedings arising under this section take precedence on the docket over all other causes and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date." Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.848(4).

Yes. "Enforcement proceedings shall be tried by preference and in summary manner. Any appellate court to which the proceeding is brought shall place it on its preferential docket, shall hear it without delay, and shall render a discussion as soon as practicable." La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42:27(B).

Yes. Actions to enforce the Act “may be advanced on the docket and receive priority over other cases when the court determines that the interest of justice so require.”  1 M.R.S.A. § 409(2). A motion may be made for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction to keep a public body from entering an executive session.  1 M.R.S.A. § 409(3); M.R. Civ. P. 65.

There are no specific provisions regarding priority, but if the person alleges a violation of §§ 3-301, 3-302, 3-303, 3-305, or 3-306(c) of the Act, the person must file within 45 days of the alleged violation. § 3-401(b).

Generally available. Normal procedure is to issue order of notice returnable in 10 days and to schedule prompt trial. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(f).

No provision of the OMA specifically gives priority to complaints under the Act.

There is no provision in the law granting priority.

There is no provision in the Act that would make these cases preference cases.

The Sunshine Law does not require that access cases be given priority on court dockets. However, most such cases under the Sunshine Law request injunctive relief. Frequently, motions for preliminary injunctions are heard on an expedited basis. Once a hearing is set on a motion for preliminary injunction, a request to consolidate the hearing on the merits with the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction is often granted.

The court virtually always gives priority to the pleading.

No provision for expedited review. Depends on judge.

There is no provision in the law giving preference to these cases.

An application for injunctive relief or to void any action taken by a public body will be given an expedited hearing. See R. 4:52, 4:67 and 4:69.

No priority is required to be given to an Open Meetings case by the district court.

There is no special priority for OML litigation. An Article 78 proceeding, however, is an expedited proceeding with a return date set forth in the notice of petition. N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. § 7804 (McKinney 1981).

The statute contains a provision that actions brought under the Open Meetings Law will be set down for immediate hearing and that all subsequent proceedings shall be accorded priority. G.S. § 143-318.16C.

The open meetings law does not specify that the court will give priority to the pleading.

The statute does not provide for expedited procedure, however, the remedies of injunction and mandamus often receive expedited treatment by the courts where it is apparent that fast action is needed to provide relief. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2501.09.

There is no particular provision allowing for an expedited proceeding.

No statutory requirement.

Nothing in the Act requires the court to give expedited consideration to a Sunshine Act challenge. In emergency situations, a litigant would proceed by seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Actions brought under the OML may be advanced on the calendar upon motion of the petitioner.  R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(g).

No statutory priority is given, but it is possible to seek temporary injunctive relief in advance of a meeting to prevent the harm, pending an opportunity to get the case heard. Rule 65, S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure.

Not known.

The Act has no provision for priority to the pleading. But see Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.03 (aggrieved party may seek restraining order without notice to opposing party if applicant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury before a hearing can be held).

If the suit is for injunction to remedy a threatened violation of the Act, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply and provide for an expedited remedy. For example, a party may, on an ex parte basis, apply for a temporary restraining order followed by a hearing for a temporary injunction. If the suit is for mandamus, the plaintiff may request a show cause order requiring the governmental body to respond to the petition at a hearing within ten days.

There is no provision under Utah law which gives open meetings issues any priority on the courts’ dockets. Expedited relief is available, however, under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Utah R. Civ. P. 65A. (temporary restraining orders).

The court is directed to expedite open meeting cases and give them priority “[e]xcept as to cases the court considers of greater importance.”  1 V.S.A. § 314(c).

Suits to enforce the provisions of the Act must be heard within seven (7) days of filing. However, if the court is not in its regular term, the hearing must be given precedence over all other cases which are not otherwise given precedence. Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3713.C.

Such matters are not given any priority on the court calendar by statute. The usual civil rules apply.

There is no provision directing the court to give priority to a citizen's petition challenging a public agency's actions under the Open Meetings Act. However, if the petition seeks to enjoin an imminent violation of the statute, an expedited hearing will be available.

There is no provision for docket priority.

The statute is silent on the issue. Courts have, however, always been quite liberal regarding the matter of pleadings in proceedings before administrative agencies. Glenn v. Board of County Comm'rs, 440 P.2d 1 (Wyo. 1968). But see Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114(b). The Supreme Court has the authority to determine the content of the record upon review, pleadings to be filed, the time and manner for filing pleadings, records and other documents and the extent to which supplemental testimony and evidence may be taken or considered by the district court. Such rules would supersede existing statutory provisions.