§Why CasetextPricing

American Center For Law And Justice v. United States Department of State

MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, and Statement of Material Facts

37 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Nixon

    418 U.S. 683 (1974)   Cited 4,102 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding appeal of District Court's denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

    421 U.S. 132 (1975)   Cited 2,048 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that FOIA does not compel agencies to write or create material to explain disclosed documents

  3. Kissinger v. Reporters Committee

    445 U.S. 136 (1980)   Cited 903 times
    Holding that in the Freedom of Information Act, the term " ‘Executive Office’ does not include the Office of the President"

  4. John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.

    493 U.S. 146 (1989)   Cited 545 times
    Holding that records originally assembled for other purposes can come within Exemption 7 if subsequently compiled for law enforcement purposes

  5. Central Intelligence Agency v. Sims

    471 U.S. 159 (1985)   Cited 441 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an earlier version of the relevant National Security Act provision "qualifies as a withholding statute under Exemption 3"

  6. Brayton v. Office of the United States Trade Representative

    641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 574 times
    Holding that even if the plaintiff was eligible to receive attorney fees, he was not entitled to an award because the government's initial position refusing the FOIA request was legally correct

  7. Vaughn v. Rosen

    484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973)   Cited 1,969 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an indexing system was necessary in FOIA cases to " assure that a party's right to information is not submerged beneath governmental obfuscation and mischaracterization, and permit the Court system effectively and efficiently to evaluate the factual nature of disputed information."

  8. Sussman v. U.S. Marshals

    494 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 553 times
    Holding that the Act grants access to only those records that are “about” the requestor, “not to all information pertaining to them that happens to be contained in a system of records”

  9. American Civil Lib. v. U.S. of Dept. of Def.

    628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 451 times
    Holding that documents must have been made public through an "official and documented disclosure by the government"

  10. Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dept. of Energy

    617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 1,186 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when agency auditors communicate information from third parties to the agency's regional counsel and ask for legal advice, the regional counsel's written responses containing "neutral, objective analyses of agency regulations" are not privileged

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,026 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,209 times   557 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party