Virginia Department of State Police v. Washington Post’s Empirical Analysis
386 F.3d 567 · 2004
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. (2010), MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines (2008)
13 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California Riverside County · Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for County of Norfolk · Gannett Co Inc v. A
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The district court] must give the public notice of the request to seal and a reasonable opportunity to challenge the request; it must consider less drastic alternatives to sealing; and if it decides to seal it must state the reasons (and specific supporting findings) for its decision and the reasons for rejecting alternatives to sealing.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In contrast to the common law, "the First Amendment guarantee of access has been extended only to particular judicial records and documents." When the First Amendment provides a right of access, a district court may restrict access "only on the basis of a compelling governmental interest, and only if the denial is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." The burden to overcome a First Amendment right of access rests on the party seeking to restrict access, and that party must present specific reasons in support of its position.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[1] whether the records are sought for improper purposes, such as promoting public scandals or unfairly gaining a business advantage; [2] whether release would enhance the public's understanding of an important historical event; and [3] whether the public has already had access to the information contained in the records.”
2 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.