From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Sciolino v. Ryan
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
440 N.Y.S.2d 795 (1981)
Facts
The Rochester City Council (the council) held public meetings twice a month on Tuesdays. Twice a month on Thursdays, the eight Democratic members of the council (the council majority) (defendants) met with other members of Rochester’s city government to discuss matters that were likely to come before the council. The council majority made up a quorum of the council under local regulations. The sole Republican member of the council was not invited to these meetings, nor were the media or general public. These closed meetings were customary in Rochester. When the Rochester government was controlled by Republicans, the Republican members of the city government held similar closed meetings. In 1980 Anthony J. Sciolino (plaintiff), the sole Republican member of the council, and Gannett, Inc., a newspaper publisher (plaintiff), were denied entry to a closed meeting. Sciolino and Gannett filed lawsuits in state court alleging that the council majority violated New York’s Open Meetings Law by holding its closed meetings. The council majority argued that its closed meetings were exempt from the Open Meetings Law because the meetings were deliberations of a political caucus. The trial court held that the council majority’s closed meetings fell under the Open Meetings Law and should be open to the public. The council majority appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moule, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
