Ethyl Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.3d 1241 · 1994
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News (2000), Grand Central Partnership, Inc. v. Cuomo (1999)
21 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 7545 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink · National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. · Vaughn v. Rosen · Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc.
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] document is deliberative if it is “ ‘actually ... related to the process by which policies are formulated.’ ” Factors used to determine whether a document is deliberative include “whether the document ‘(i) formed an essential link in a specified consultative process, (ii) reflects the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency, and (iii) if released, would inaccurately reflect or prematurely disclose the views of the agency.’ ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the privilege does not protect a document which is merely peripheral to actual policy formation; the record must bear on the formulation or exercise of policy-oriented judgment.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In judging the adequacy of an agency search for documents the relevant question is not whether every single potentially responsive document has been unearthed, but whether the agency has demonstrated that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. In demonstrating the adequacy of its search, [an agency may rely on an] affidavit [that is] reasonably detailed, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched so as to give the requesting party an opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the search.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.