Case Summaries 
of Importance to Counties

2013 Open Meetings

  • Fisher v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission, 2013 WL 2382300 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013)—A group of county citizens sued the planning commission and other county officials based on alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act related to approval of a mosque.  The site plan for the mosque was reviewed and approved during a regular meeting of the planning commission.  The plaintiffs alleged that the site plan approval was void due to inadequate public notice under the Open Meetings Act. A local newspaper, the Murfreesboro Post, intervened in the lawsuit to seek a declaratory judgment that the paper was a legal location for public notices.  The trial court found that the site plan approval was void because notice of the commission meeting did not comply with the Open Meetings Act.  The Court of Appeals reversed.  The Court found that the notice was sufficient to “fairly inform the public.”  According to the Court, T.C.A. § 8-44-103 requires notice of the meeting itself and does not specifically require notice as to the content of the meeting.  The Court found that the trial court erred in holding that the law required notice of the content of meetings, even regular meetings, when the issues were matters of public importance.  The Court stated that such a requirement only applied to special meetings.  The commission provided notice of the regular meeting just like all other regular meetings and just like for all other site plans.  The trial court also found that notice published in the Murfreesboro Post was not adequate public notice under the Act.  The trial court found that there was no home delivery of the paper and the nearest distribution rack was three miles away from the site.  The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the paper was published weekly, intended for general circulation and contained matters of general interest.  Further, over 21,000 copies were distributed, this was the customary location for commission notices, and persons could obtain a copy from a distribution rack or the paper’s website.  Therefore, according to the Court, notice in the paper constituted adequate public notice under the Act (May 29, 2013).

Return to all Case Summaries Relating to Open Meetings