Herrick v. Garvey’s Empirical Analysis
298 F.3d 1184 · 2002
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Taylor v. Sturgell (2008), Davignon v. Hodgson (2008)
16 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 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 18 U.S.C. § 3505 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. · Simms v. Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services · King v. United States Department of Justice · Davis v. United States Department of Justice
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen a submitter grants the government permission to loan or release specific information to the public, the submitter clearly indicates that he has no further intention to keep the information secret. It is therefore a reasonable inference that the submitter himself would be willing to release the information to the public if requested to do so. Thus, once a submitter grants the government permission to loan or release the information to the public, there is no reason for Exemption 4 to apply because the submitter no longer intends the information to be “secret.” An examination of the plain meaning of the word “secret” leads to a similar conclusion. Most people would agree that if a person was given a piece of information and was told that the information could be revealed to anyone who asked about it, the information would not constitute a “secret.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The standard governing a grant of summary judgment in favor of an agency that claims it has fully discharged its FOIA disclosure obligations is well established .... [T]he agency must show, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the requester, that there is no genuine issue of material fact. To meet this burden, the agency must demonstrate that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.... The adequacy of the search, in turn, is judged by a standard of reasonableness and depends ... upon the facts of each case. In demonstrating the adequacy of the search, the agency may rely upon reasonably detailed, nonconclusory affidavits submitted in good faith.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“purpose of Exemption 4 is `to protect the confidentiality of information which is obtained by the Government... but which would customarily not be released to the public by the person from whom it was obtained.'”
1 later decision 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.