Home/Ohio Supreme Court/State ex rel. Milo's Beauty Supply Co. v. State Board of Cosmetology

State ex rel. Milo's Beauty Supply Co. v. State Board of Cosmetology

361 N.E.2d 444, 49 Ohio St. 2d 245, 3 Ohio Op. 3d 374, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 347
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 16, 1977
DocketNo. 76-343
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 361 N.E.2d 444 (State ex rel. Milo's Beauty Supply Co. v. State Board of Cosmetology) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Milo's Beauty Supply Co. v. State Board of Cosmetology, 361 N.E.2d 444, 49 Ohio St. 2d 245, 3 Ohio Op. 3d 374, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 347 (Ohio 1977).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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, relying on the definition pf “public record” in R. C. 149.43, stated:

* * [T]he General Assembly defined, with certain exceptions, ‘public record’ as ‘any record required to be kept by any governmental unit.’ Therefore, if the records in question in the instant case are specifically required to be kept by law, the availability for inspection is mandated by R. C. 149.43.” (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.

O’Neill,, O. j:, Herbert, CReebRezze, W. Brown, P.' Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Taylor, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2003)
2003 Ohio 6963 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
State v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (3-8-2001)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2001
State v. Worthy
2000 Ohio 428 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
State v. Williams
88 Ohio St. 3d 513 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
Police & Fire Retirees of Ohio, Inc. v. Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund
480 N.E.2d 482 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1985)
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Lesak
457 N.E.2d 821 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1984)
State ex rel. Public Employees Retirees, Inc. v. Public Employees Retirement System
397 N.E.2d 1191 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1979)
State ex rel. Citizens' Bar Ass'n v. Gagliardo
378 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
361 N.E.2d 444, 49 Ohio St. 2d 245, 3 Ohio Op. 3d 374, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-milos-beauty-supply-co-v-state-board-of-cosmetology-ohio-1977.