Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 517 F.2d 166 - Ditlow v. Shultz

Ditlow v. Shultz’s Empirical Analysis

517 F.2d 166 · 1975

Citation profile

105
cited by 105 later decisions
4
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 46 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency (2007), 90 Wash. 2d 123 - Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe (1978)

31 federal appellate · 46 district · 7 state decisions

49019751980199020002010decided

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 Soucie v. David · Getman v. National Labor Relations Board · Bristol-Myers Co. v. Federal Trade Commission · Rural Housing Alliance v. United States Department of Agriculture · Sterling Drug Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

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

  1. “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “... we have held that ‘information regarding marital status, legitimacy of children, identity of fathers of children, medical condition, welfare payments, alcoholic consumption, family fights [and] reputation’ is within the purview of Exemption 6. Similarly, Air Force Academy case summaries of honors and ethics hearings fall within the exemption to the extent that they may only be released after deletion of identifying details. In contrast, names and addresses of employees eligible to vote in labor representation elections are not exempt, nor are names and addresses of persons whose homes were built on uranium tailings.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.