Holz v. Westphal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The final ROI subject block contains Holz’s full name, his birth date, his address, and the notations “Fatal Traffic Accident” and “Negligent Homicide,” without any further explanation. A reasonable trier of fact would conclude that this information, in this format, suggests that Holz committed negligent homicide. Holz, however, was never found guilty of this offense. Rather, the only legal proceedings to arise from Holz’s car accident — in the only legal system to possess jurisdiction over the matter — resulted in a dismissal of the charges, with no finding of guilt. Therefore, the suggestion in the ROI is not sufficiently accurate or complete to be fair to Holz. This unfairness is underscored by the fact that the information contained in the ROI’s subject block is automatically replicated in the database cataloguing the CID’s investigatory activities and is thereby subject to dissemination. The risk of disclosure is not merely abstract, as demonstrated when the FBI obtained the information from the ROI and prepared a criminal history report of Holz based on it. Under such circumstances, Holz is entitled to have his name removed from the ROI’s subject block.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 360 F. Supp. 2d 133 - Holz v. Westphal

2. “Army regulations governing CID operations provide that “[t]he Army has investigative authority whenever an Army interest exists .... ” AR 195-2 ¶ 3 — 1(b) ... As stated in the final [Report of Investigation, or “ROI”], however, the Army ultimately • • ■ concluded] that the investigation had to be terminated because “the offenses were committed by a civilian, who is not subject to the [Uniform Code of Military Justice], there are no violations of federal criminal statutes with which the person can be charged, and no other U.S. Army interest exists.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 360 F. Supp. 2d 133 - Holz v. Westphal