24 Cited authorities

Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't
523 U.S. 83 (1998) Cited 10,696 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits
Medimmune, Inc. v. GenenTech, Inc.
549 U.S. 118 (2007) Cited 2,527 times 90 Legal Analyses
Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"
Preiser v. Newkirk
422 U.S. 395 (1975) Cited 1,835 times
Holding that "a federal court has neither the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them"
Public Citizen v. Department of Justice
491 U.S. 440 (1989) Cited 786 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff advocacy organizations' inability to obtain information that Congress made subject to disclosure under the Federal Advisory Committee Act "constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to provide standing to sue"
Md. Casualty Co. v. Pacific Co.
312 U.S. 270 (1941) Cited 2,912 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that declaratory judgment action was ripe where state action was pending, and state law gave party the right to sue the other
SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC
926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) Cited 1,697 times
Holding that information in law enforcement records identifying private individuals is exempt from disclosure unless release is necessary to "confirm or refute compelling evidence that the agency is engaged in illegal activity"
Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency
315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) Cited 536 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the failure of an agency to turn up one specific document in its search does not alone render a search inadequate"
Weisberg v. Dept. of Justice
745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) Cited 810 times
Holding that the requestor pretermitted the administrative process by filing suit before the agency had time to respond
Students Against Genocide v. Dept. of State
257 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2001) Cited 446 times
Holding that photographs "plainly d[id] not fall within" the public-domain doctrine because they "were not released to the general public," and only certain outside parties were allowed to see them
Perry v. Block
684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) Cited 763 times
Holding that an agency's confused, delayed, and disjointed response to a request for records was not "willful or deliberate in the sense demanded by the Privacy Act."
Section 6362 - State option to conduct assessment system audit
20 U.S.C. § 6362 Cited 1 times
(a) In general From the amount reserved under section 6363(a)(3) of this title for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make grants to States to enable the States to- (1) in the case of a grant awarded under this section to a State for the first time- (A) audit State assessment systems and ensure that local educational agencies audit local assessments under subsection (e)(1); (B) execute the State plan under subsection (e)(3)(D); and (C) award subgrants under subsection (f); and (2) in the case of

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Spellings et al

24 Cited authorities

Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits

Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"

Holding that "a federal court has neither the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them"

Holding that plaintiff advocacy organizations' inability to obtain information that Congress made subject to disclosure under the Federal Advisory Committee Act "constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to provide standing to sue"

Holding that declaratory judgment action was ripe where state action was pending, and state law gave party the right to sue the other

Holding that information in law enforcement records identifying private individuals is exempt from disclosure unless release is necessary to "confirm or refute compelling evidence that the agency is engaged in illegal activity"

Holding that "the failure of an agency to turn up one specific document in its search does not alone render a search inadequate"

Holding that the requestor pretermitted the administrative process by filing suit before the agency had time to respond

Holding that photographs "plainly d[id] not fall within" the public-domain doctrine because they "were not released to the general public," and only certain outside parties were allowed to see them

Holding that an agency's confused, delayed, and disjointed response to a request for records was not "willful or deliberate in the sense demanded by the Privacy Act."