Rizzo v. Tyler’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2003
4 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Diapulse Corp. of America v. Food & Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education & Welfare · Merckens v. DuPont
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Documents shall be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge where the agency determines that waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the public.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c) Notice of anticipated fees in excess of $25. Where it is anticipated that the fees chargeable under this section will amount to more than $25 and the requester has not indicated in advance his willingness to pay fees as high as are anticipated, the requester shall be notified of the amount of the anticipated fee or such portion thereof as can readily be estimated. In such cases, a request will not be deemed to have been received until the requester is notified of the anticipated cost and agrees to bear it. (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As plaintiff admits in his complaint, “(t)he principal purpose for which the information is intended to be used is ... litigating pending criminal charges.” There is nothing in plaintiffs allegation to distinguish it from any other inquiry made by a criminal defendant of the Department. Clearly, the “public interest” waiver was not intended to apply to all such inquiries.”
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.