51 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,673 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,706 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 27,960 times 138 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
Los Angeles v. Lyons
461 U.S. 95 (1983) Cited 7,536 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold
Allen v. Wright
468 U.S. 737 (1984) Cited 4,769 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that, even when plaintiffs allege "one of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system," it's not justiciable where "the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents' standing"
Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Prot. A.
532 U.S. 1 (2001) Cited 1,011 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the determination that records are not inter- or intra-agency "rules out any application of Exemption 5"
National Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish
541 U.S. 157 (2004) Cited 833 times
Holding that "[g]iven FOIA's pro-disclosure purpose," a less stringent standard whereby a requester need only "produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person" "is more faithful to the statutory scheme" in some contexts
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
421 U.S. 132 (1975) Cited 2,044 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that FOIA does not compel agencies to write or create material to explain disclosed documents
Dept. of Air Force v. Rose
425 U.S. 352 (1976) Cited 1,669 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that although "redaction cannot eliminate all risks of identifiability," it was a "familiar technique" and sufficient to protect the identities of Air Force Academy cadets described in summaries of disciplinary proceedings
United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
510 U.S. 487 (1994) Cited 667 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, although the requesting unions' interest in obtaining the home addresses of agency employees “might allow the unions to communicate more effectively with employees, ... it would not appreciably further the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to”
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,402 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
5 U.S.C. § 552 Cited 12,191 times 556 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
Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
28 U.S.C. § 1746 Cited 10,076 times 17 Legal Analyses
Permitting the use of declarations instead
Section 1229a - Removal proceedings
8 U.S.C. § 1229a Cited 6,299 times 8 Legal Analyses
Granting a noncitizen the right to file one motion to reopen and providing that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”

Gatore et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security

51 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold

Holding that the determination that records are not inter- or intra-agency "rules out any application of Exemption 5"

Holding that "[g]iven FOIA's pro-disclosure purpose," a less stringent standard whereby a requester need only "produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person" "is more faithful to the statutory scheme" in some contexts

Holding that FOIA does not compel agencies to write or create material to explain disclosed documents

Holding that although "redaction cannot eliminate all risks of identifiability," it was a "familiar technique" and sufficient to protect the identities of Air Force Academy cadets described in summaries of disciplinary proceedings

Holding that, although the requesting unions' interest in obtaining the home addresses of agency employees “might allow the unions to communicate more effectively with employees, ... it would not appreciably further the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to”

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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

Permitting the use of declarations instead

Granting a noncitizen the right to file one motion to reopen and providing that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”