§Why CasetextPricing

Morley v. United States Central Intelligence Agency

MOTION for Order

9 Cited authorities

  1. Hensley v. Eckerhart

    461 U.S. 424 (1983)   Cited 22,271 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

  2. Blum v. Stenson

    465 U.S. 886 (1984)   Cited 9,123 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”

  3. Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency

    508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 649 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding CIA clearance and investigatory processes and related law enforcement techniques and procedures exempt under Exemption 7(E)

  4. Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency

    550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 2008)   Cited 154 times
    Holding that fourth factor weighed against agency where agency took more than one year to process documents and provided no legal basis in response to a second FOIA request

  5. Tax Analysts v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

    965 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 130 times
    Finding the plaintiff a "representative of the news media" because the plaintiff published a weekly magazine which included summaries of recent federal-court tax decisions, provided full texts of federal-court tax decisions on microfiche, and published a daily electronic data base which included summaries and full texts of federal-court tax decisions

  6. Fenster v. Brown

    617 F.2d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1979)   Cited 108 times
    Affirming denial of fees in light of "enormous" commercial interest of plaintiff in disclosure of government manual

  7. Allen v. Central Intelligence Agency

    636 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 105 times
    Finding CIA declaration insufficient to support Exemption 3 claim because declarations were "conclusory" and "do little more than parrot the language of [the statute] by stating that `intelligence sources and methods' will be compromised if the document is disclosed"

  8. Goos v. National Ass'n of Realtors

    68 F.3d 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 35 times
    In Goos, a divided panel of the District of Columbia Circuit at least appeared to suggest that failure to succeed on "related" claims is not a sufficient reason to reduce attorneys' fees.

  9. Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency

    496 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    Civ. No. 00-2134 (RJL). April 23, 2007. James H. Lesar, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Charlotte A. Abel, United States Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION LEON, District Judge. In 1993, William Davy submitted a FOIA request to the CIA seeking documents relating to two CIA programs that Mr. Davy believed were related to the Kennedy assassination. The documents were never produced and in September 2000 Davy filed suit to compel production. That suit was dismissed (with