Search AG Opinions & Decisions
Open Records Decision —
21-ORD-057
Opinion Opinion By: Daniel Cameron, Attorney General; Marc Manley, Assistant Attorney General Open Records Decision Inmate Glenn Odom ("Appellant") sent two requests to receive copies of certain records from the Reformatory. Among the records that …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Reformatory
Open Records Decision —
21-ORD-163
Opinion Opinion By: Daniel Cameron, Attorney General; Matthew Ray, Assistant Attorney General Open Records Decision On July 13, 2021, Glenn Odom ("Appellant") submitted to the Penitentiary a request for records related to the Penitentiary placing …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Penitentiary
Open Records Decision —
21-ORD-171
Opinion Opinion By: Daniel Cameron, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General Open Records Decision On July 27, 2021, inmate Glenn Odom ("Appellant") requested a copy of all the "legal material request forms that [he] gave to …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Penitentiary
Open Records Decision —
21-ORD-209
Opinion Opinion By: Daniel Cameron, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General Open Records Decision On September 6, 2021, inmate Glenn Odom ("Appellant") requested a copy of his incoming legal mail logs from the Reformatory …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Reformatory
Open Records Decision —
22-ORD-024
Opinion Opinion By: Daniel Cameron,Attorney General;Matthew Ray,Assistant Attorney General Open Records Decision On December 23, 2021, inmate Glenn Odom ("Appellant") submitted a request to the Reformatory for a copy of a record he signed on or …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Reformatory
Open Records Decision —
22-ORD-049
Opinion Opinion By: Matthew Ray, Assistant Attorney General Summary : The Louisville Metro Department of Corrections (the "Department") violated the Open Records Act ("the Act") when it failed to issue a response to a request to inspect records …
Glenn Odom — Louisville Metro Department of Corrections
23-ORD-027
23-ORD-027 February 7, 2023 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary Summary: This Office cannot find the Kentucky State Penitentiary (“the Penitentiary”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it provided what the requester considers …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Penitentiary
23-ORD-062
23-ORD-062 March 20, 2023 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary Summary: This Office cannot find that the Kentucky State Penitentiary (the “Penitentiary”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it provides proof it timely issued …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Penitentiary
23-ORD-105
23-ORD-105 May 8, 2023 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary Summary: The Kentucky State Penitentiary (the “Penitentiary”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it issued a timely response to a request to inspect records. …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Penitentiary
23-ORD-186
23-ORD-186 July 26, 2023 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary Summary: The Office is unable to find that the Kentucky State Penitentiary (the “Penitentiary”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not respond to a request for …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Penitentiary
23-ORD-193
23-ORD-193 August 1, 2023 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary Summary: The Office cannot find that the Kentucky State Penitentiary (the “Penitentiary”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) because the Office is unable to resolve the …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Penitentiary
24-ORD-053
24-ORD-053 March 5, 2024 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Reformatory Summary: The Kentucky State Reformatory (the “Reformatory”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to issue a response to requests within five business days of …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Reformatory
24-ORD-082
24-ORD-082 March 20, 2024 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary Summary: The Office is unable to find that the Kentucky State Penitentiary (the “Penitentiary”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) because the Office is unable to resolve …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Penitentiary
Open Records Decision —
24-ORD-107
24-ORD-107 April 26, 2024 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Police Summary: The Kentucky State Police (“KSP”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it withheld from inspection under KRS 17.150(2) intelligence and investigative reports …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Police
Open Records Decision —
24-ORD-117
24-ORD-117 May 9, 2024 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky Department of Corrections Summary: The Office cannot find that the Kentucky Department of Corrections (the “Department”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) because the Office cannot resolve …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky Department of Corrections
Open Records Decision —
25-ORD-006
25-ORD-006 January 7, 2025 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary Summary: The Kentucky State Penitentiary (“the Penitentiary”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it provided all responsive records it possesses. Open …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Penitentiary
Open Records Decision —
25-ORD-005
25-ORD-005 January 7, 2025 In re: Glenn Odom/Oldham County Detention Center Summary: The Oldham County Detention Center (“the Center”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not provide records it does not possess. The Office …
Glenn Odom — Oldham County Detention Center
Open Records Decision —
25-ORD-091
25-ORD-091 April 3, 2025 In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary Summary: The Kentucky State Penitentiary (“the Penitentiary”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it redacted records to remove information posing a security …
Glenn Odom — Kentucky State Penitentiary
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.