Superintendent v. Henschen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 state decisions

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Section 3 (b)(i) is in the disjunctive, excepting records of investigation by the enumerated types of law enforcement agencies or investigatory files compiled for any other law enforcement or prosecution purposes. The statutory provision exempts from the mandatory disclosure requirement two categories of documents: (1) investigatory records of certain named law enforcement agencies; (2) investigatory records of other governmental agencies which were compiled for law enforcement or prosecution purposes. It is only with respect to the second category that there is an express requirement that the records be compiled for law enforcement or prosecution purposes. The statutory language, and particularly the use of the word other before the phrase “law-enforcement or prosecution purposes,” suggests that the Legislature believed that investigatory records of one of the enumerated law enforcement agencies were presumptively for law enforcement or prosecution purposes, but that investigatory records compiled by other agencies might or might not be for such purposes.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fioretti v. Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners · Office State Prosecutor v. Judicial Watch, Inc.

2. ““[I]t is desirable to emphasize just what is before us for decision in this case and what is not. This is an action under the Public Information Act and not a proceeding to review an administrative decision revoking a handgun permit. The Public Information Act provides that, subject to certain enumerated exceptions, ‘the custodian of any public records shall allow any person the right of inspection of such records.... ’ (Art. 76A, § 3(a), emphasis supplied.) The general right of inspection is not limited to a ‘person aggrieved’ or ‘person in interest.’ The term ‘person’ is broadly defined to include ‘any natural person, corporation, partnership, firm or association.’ (Art. 76A, § 1(g).) Con sequently, if the Superintendent’s refusal to disclose in this case is not justified by one of the Public Information Act’s exceptions, Mr. Henschen would be entitled to the information regardless of the pendency of an appeal to the Handgun Permit Review Board. Moreover, the applicability of the exception upon which the Superintendent relies in this case, the exception for records of investigations (§ 3(b)(i)), does not at all depend upon whether the records would be available to a party in litigation with the agency. Thus, whether or not due process considerations might make the records available to Mr. Henschen as a party in the administrative proceeding before the Handgun Permit Review Board does not determine whether they are available under the Public Informatioxi Act. “On the other h”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Massey v. Galley

3. ““Records of investigations conducted by, or of intelligence information or security procedures of, any sheriff, county attorney, city attorney, the Attorney General, police department or any investigatory files compiled for any other law enforcement or prosecution purposes.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Faulk v. STATE'S ATTORNEY FOR HARFORD CTY.