Mann v. Boatright’s Empirical Analysis
477 F.3d 1140 · 2007
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Estate of Booker v. Gomez (2014), Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents (2007)
23 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 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
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. · Nixon v. Warner Communications, 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court finds the complete disclosure of the details of Skinner’s cooperation would work substantial damage to the government by creating a chilling effect on future cooperation. The government’s interest is extremely strong, and the fact that some limited information from the Cl file has been referenced during the long post-conviction proceedings does not justify the wholesale release of the entire file. Additional re-dactions beyond those contained in the Vaughn index are unjustified in light of the government’s interest. The court further finds that the relatively few documents which are in the Cl file but not in the Vaughn index should remain sealed as well. In both cases, a broad release of the information would be unjustified in light of the governmental interest involved, and the government interest is sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Given the highly confidential nature of the informant file, the glancing and indirect nature of much of the “publication” cited by the defendants, and the inherent chilling effect of a release of that information on future investigations, the court finds that specific redactions beyond those identified in the Vaughn index are insufficient to satisfy the government interest involved. Accordingly, the court finds the defendants’ Mdtion to Unseal shall remain denied, except as provided herein.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Something labeled a complaint but written more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to preform the essential functions of a complaint.”
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.