Dunaway v. Webster’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 18 district ·

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

1. “little ... to dispel the court’s doubts. Most of the information concerns the comings and goings of United States citizens 20 to 30 years ago, as well as the accumulation of general information on the activities of various organizations in this country which were considered subversive at that time. Virtually all of the information is of the most mundane character, information which has no apparent relationship to the security of this nation today, if it ever had____ Many of the organizations spied on are defunct, many are no longer considered a security risk, and many of the individuals involved are dead. Without some evidence from the government that would suggest to this court that the sources revealed in these documents are of continuing use to the United States for national security pin-poses, this court cannot find any basis for believing that this information, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to have any identifiable damage on our national security.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. United States Department of Justice

2. “This is not the first time that the government’s dilatory tactics have reached a point where the courts have felt an obligation to admonish the government for its behavior. See Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. Miller, 490 F.Supp. 144 , 146 n. 1, 150 (D.D.C. 1980); Irons v. Bell, 596 F.2d 468, 470 (1st Cir.1979) (FBI moved “with glacial celerity.”). The government may well feel that by making these FOIA proceedings as lengthy and costly as possible, it will discourage others from pursuing their rights under the Act, even in those cases where the plaintiff ultimately prevails in whole or in part. Not only is this a dangerous litigation strategy, but one which is inappropriate to a coordinate branch of the federal government, whose interest will be served by the equitable and fair enforcement of all the laws, (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Powell v. United States Dept. of Justice

3. “Sec. 1.3 Classification Categories. (a) Information shall be considered for classification if it concerns: (4) intelligence activities (including special activities), or intelligence sources or methods; (5) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States; (b) Information that is determined to concern one or more of the categories in Section 1.3(a) shall be classified when an original classification authority also determines that its unauthorized disclosure, either by itself or in the context of other information, reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security. (c) Unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information, the identity of a confidential foreign source, or intelligence sources or methods is presumed to cause damage to the national security.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 584 F. Supp. 1508 - Powell v. United States Dept. of Justice