However, once Plaintiff filed a written request for the recordings that were kept on the SCC computer, they were public records subject inspection. See § 14~2-6(F) (stating that records relating to public business are public records regardless of whether required by law to be kept); see also Office of the New Mexico Attorney General, Inspection of Public Records Act Compliance Guide28 (6th ed. 2009), available at http://www.nmag.gov/ consumer/publications/inspectionofpublicrec ordsactcomplianceguide2009. Because Plaintiff succeeded in her appeal and was improperly denied the right to inspect the one recording that remained at the time of her request, we remand to the district court for a determination of the appropriate award under Section 14-2-12(D); Rio Grande Sun, 2012-NMCA-091, ¶ 8 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION {29} For the reasons set forth
holding that each plaintiff is liable for fees if he would have been entitled to his fees if he had prevailed holding that a plaintiff who prevailed on a 42 usc  1983 claim was entitled to an award of attorneys fees incurred on appeal holding that the plaintiff who prevailed in an ipra enforcement action was entitled to an award of damages fees and costs recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs holding defendant landowner entitled to appellate attorneys fees and costs where condemning authority appealed fee award and defendant prevailed