128 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,238 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 216,328 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"
First Nat. Bank v. Cities Service
391 U.S. 253 (1968) Cited 8,813 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a continuance of summary judgment need not be granted particularly when ample time and opportunities for discovery have already lapsed
United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (1974) Cited 4,089 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
U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee
489 U.S. 749 (1989) Cited 1,918 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that disclosure of "[o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within [FOIA's] statutory purpose"
Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Prot. A.
532 U.S. 1 (2001) Cited 1,009 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 829 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 2,041 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that FOIA does not compel agencies to write or create material to explain disclosed documents
Hickman v. Taylor
329 U.S. 495 (1947) Cited 6,496 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”
Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts
492 U.S. 136 (1989) Cited 819 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that documents are only “agency records” within the meaning of FOIA if the agency both “create or obtain” the documents and “control” them
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,775 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 12,171 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 798 - Disclosure of classified information
18 U.S.C. § 798 Cited 91 times
Setting forth criminal penalties for disclosure of classified information
Section 403-1 - Transferred
50 U.S.C. § 403-1 Cited 66 times
Providing that "[t]he Director of National Intelligence shall protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure"

Wilner et al v. National Security Agency et al

128 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 a continuance of summary judgment need not be granted particularly when ample time and opportunities for discovery have already lapsed

Holding appeal of District Court's denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254

Holding that disclosure of "[o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within [FOIA's] statutory purpose"

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 documents are only “agency records” within the meaning of FOIA if the agency both “create or obtain” the documents and “control” them

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

Setting forth criminal penalties for disclosure of classified information

Providing that "[t]he Director of National Intelligence shall protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure"