Laserfiche WebLink
14.13 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS <br />sack, 115 NJL 2092 178 A 794, citing e- <br />Quillin text. <br />Ohio. State v. Cleveland, 15 Ohio Cir <br />Ct. 517, 8 Ohio Cir Dec 857. <br />4 Missouri. State v. Ward (Mo App), <br />305 Sw2d 900. <br />24 <br />5 New York. Blurt v. Board of Zoning <br />Appeals of Yvan of North Hempstead <br />(Misc), 146 NS2d 325. <br />Louisiana. Toledano v. Drake (La <br />App), 161 Sold 339. <br />14.1. Effect of delay; estoppel; ex post. facto effect, <br />Amendments ents r ade several years after the original entries have <br />been sustained,' but generally amendments to operate nano pro <br />tune must be rVade within a reasonable time, usually a matter of <br />months;' othenlrise they are unauthorized.-' A record may not be <br />amended if the rights of innocent third persons have previously <br />y <br />intervened." In such a ease the municipality is estopped from avail- <br />ing itself of a correction of the record." It has been ruled, however, <br />that where one violated an ordinance not legally passed, because he <br />thought the municipality would not be able to prove its passage, and <br />the record was subsequently amended to show legal passage, he <br />could not properly contend that the amendment was ex post facto i <br />its character and void as to him." <br />' Alabama. Guntersville v. Walls, <br />252 Ala 66, 39 So2d-567 (by on- m'ssion <br />which succeeded council). <br />Georgia. ovens v. Dalton, 144 Ga <br />656, 87 SB 913 (eight months). <br />Massaehusetts. Welles v. Battelle,11 <br />Mass 47 7. <br />2 Tennessee. State v. Moore, 167 <br />Tern 170,67 Sw2d 151. <br />'3 Kentucky. Covington v. Ludlow, I <br />Mete 295 (t co- ear- lapse). <br />Nebraska. Valentine v. Valentine <br />Motel, Inc., 176 Neb 63, 125 W?,d 98 <br />(amendment not permitted), Beverly <br />Land CO. v. South Sioux City,117 I eb 47s <br />219 NW 885 (lapse of 18 months). <br />4 United States, Rogers & Trace, Inc. <br />v. Board of Education of Bark Fridge, 99 <br />F2d 773, citing McQuiffin text'. <br />Alabama. Gunwrsville v- walls, 252 <br />Ala 66, 39 So2d 667. <br />'5 Connecticut. New Haven, 1'Iri. & W. <br />R. Go. v. Chatham, 42 Conn 465, 479. <br />Illinois. Gilberts v. Rabe, 40 111 App <br />418. <br />V. INSPECTION <br />1.14. Right to inspect. <br />Full and complete disclosure of public affairs should be encour- <br />aged.' Accordingly, public pohey favors the right of inspection of <br />public records and d eument .2 It is important to ob erve how <br />that not all records kept f � � � however, <br />p a pblY o#'cer are publJe records. What <br />is a public record has been said to he, in the absence of express <br />statute, a question of law., the nature and purpose of the record, and <br />possibly custom and usage, must be guides in determining the class <br />to which it belongs.4 SO] it. has been'held that as a matter of law <br />