Susan Bisio v. the City of the Village of Clarkston, 954 N.W.2d 95

Susan Bisio submitted a FOIA request to the City of the Village of Clarkston seeking correspondence in the city attorney’s files about a development project and vacant property.
The city attorney (a private attorney under contract to Clarkston) refused to produce certain documents, asserting they were not "public records" because they were not a writing of a "public body" and were never in the city’s possession.
The Oakland Circuit Court granted summary disposition for the city, finding no evidence Clarkston had used or retained the contested documents in performing an official function.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning the city attorney was merely an agent and the statutory definition of "public body" does not encompass an agent.
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed: it held the office of the city attorney is an "other body" created by local authority under MCL 15.232(h)(iv), and the attorney’s retained writings made in the performance of official functions are public records under MCL 15.232(i).
Chief Justice McCormack concurred (would apply common-law agency principles to FOIA); Justice Viviano dissented (criticized majority’s reliance on an amicus theory and warned of expansive consequences).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the requested attorney communications are "public records" under MCL 15.232(i)	Bisio: the writings were prepared/retained in performance of official functions and therefore are public records	Clarkston: the writings were not held by a "public body" and thus not subject to FOIA	Yes — writings retained by the office of the city attorney in performance of official functions are public records.
Whether the office of the city attorney is a "public body" under MCL 15.232(h)(iv)	Bisio: the city charter creates an office of city attorney, which is an "other body" created by local authority	Clarkston: the city attorney is an individual/agent, not a collective public body; office language does not create a distinct entity	Yes — the city charter creates an "office of the city attorney," which qualifies as an "other body" created by local authority and thus a public body.
Whether common-law agency principles make records held by an agent (city attorney) attributable to the public body	Bisio: agency principles apply so an agent’s documents created while representing the city are the city’s records	Clarkston: agent-status does not convert an agent’s private files into the public body’s files for FOIA	Not necessary to the majority’s holding. Concurrence: would apply agency principles and reach same disclosure outcome. Dissent: rejects expanding FOIA via agency or amicus theory.

Amberg v. Dearborn, 497 Mich 28 (2014) (describes FOIA’s purpose and public-record test)
Herald Co. v. Bay City, 463 Mich 111 (2000) (interpretive guidance on meaning of "public body")
Breighner v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 471 Mich 217 (2004) (distinguishes an "agency" unit from an "agent" relationship under FOIA)
In re Capuzzi Estate, 470 Mich 399 (2004) (common-law principle that agent stands in principal’s shoes)
Kent County Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n v. Kent County Sheriff, 463 Mich 353 (2000) (characterizes FOIA as broadly written to open government records)
People v. Freedland, 308 Mich 449 (1944) (elements and definition of a public office)