State ex rel. Milo's Beauty Supply Co. v. State Bd. of Cosmetology, 76-343
| Decision Date | 16 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-343,76-343 |
| Citation | 361 N.E.2d 444,49 Ohio St.2d 245,3 O.O.3d 374 |
| Parties | , 3 O.O.3d 374 STATE ex rel. MILO'S BEAUTY SUPPLY CO. v. STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
White, Rankin, Pfefferle, Herron & Henney and George L. Henry, Columbus, for relator.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Charles T. Collett, Columbus, for respondents State Board of Cosmetology, its members, and its executive secretary.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and George E. Lord, Columbus, for respondent Director, Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services.
The issue presented is whether the records to which relator seeks access are 'public records' under R.C. 149.43, and thus are required to be available for inspection and copying. This court, in State, ex rel. Grosser, v. Boy (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 498, 330 N.E.2d 442, the definition of 'public record' in R.C. 149.43, stated:
(Footnote omitted.)
This court has thus enunciated a twofold test to determine the existence of 'public records': (1) the records must be kept by a governmental unit, and (2) the records must be specifically required to be kept by law. Affirmative application of these two elements in a given circumstance mandates that the records be available for inspection and copying.
R.C. 4713.02 created the State Board of Cosmetology and delegated to the board power to regulate specific activities pertaining to cosmetology. Furthermore, R.C. 4713.02 specifically states, in pertinent part, as follows:
'The board shall keep a record containing the names and known places of business, and the date and number of license, of every licensed cosmetologist, and those engaged in the practice of any branch of cosmetology, together with the names and addresses of all licensed beauty salons and schools of cosmetology.'
It is apparent the records relator seeks to inspect and copy are 'public records,' as defined by R.C. 149.43. In this instance, the legislative mandate of R.C. 149.43 clearly dictates relator's right to the inspection and copying of said records.
A writ of mandamus, consistent with this opinion, is allowed.
Writ allowed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...contained in a record required by law to be kept by a governmental agency, see State ex rel. Milo's Beauty Supply Co. v. State Bd. of Cosmetology (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 245, 3 O.O.3d 374, 375, 361 N.E.2d 444, 445, and no evidence has been produced that a convicted sex offender's interest in ......
-
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Pub. Co. v. Lesak
...State, ex rel. Citizens' Bar Assn., v. Gagliardo (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 70, 378 N.E.2d 153 ; State, ex rel. Beauty Supply Co., v. State Bd. of Cosmetology (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 245, 361 N.E.2d 444 It is beyond argument that the two checking accounts at issue should have been kept by a govern......
-
Chester Tp. v. Power Siting Commission
... ... local judgment on tower designs unless the state can show that such deference 'will conflict with ... considerations but upon aesthetics, beauty versus ugliness, or likes versus dislikes. The ... ...
-
State v. Joseph Johnson
... ... See State ex rel ... Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron ... Milo's Beauty ... Supply Co. v. State Bd. of Cosmetology ... ...