Weissman v. Central Intelligence Agency’s Empirical Analysis
565 F.2d 692 · 1977
Citation profile
114 federal appellate · 60 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 232 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of Air Force (1977), Military Audit Project v. Casey (1981)
114 federal appellate · 60 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 292 · 50 U.S.C. § 403 (§ 102 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 50 U.S.C. § 403G (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink · Vaughn v. Rosen · Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc. · Phillippi v. Central Intelligence Agency
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 232 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]nce satisfied that proper procedures had been followed and that the information logically falls into the exemption claimed, the courts 'need not go further to test the expertise of the agency, or to question its veracity when nothing appears to raise the issue of good faith.'”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[T]he conferees recognize that the Executive departments responsible for national defense and foreign policy matters have unique insights into what adverse effects might occur as a result of public disclosure of a particular classified record. Accordingly, the conferees expect that the federal courts, in making de novo determinations in section 552 (b)(1) cases under the Freedom of Information law, will accord substantial weight to an agency's affidavit concerning the details of the classified status of the disputed record.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For the purpose of coordinating the intelligence activities of the several Government departments and agencies in the interest of national security, it shall be the duty of the Agency, under the direction of the National Security Council— ****** (3) to correlate and evaluate intelligence relating to the national security, and provide for the appropriate dissemination of such intelligence within the Government using where appropriate existing agencies and facilities: Provided, That the Agency shall have no police, subpena, law-enforcement powers, or internal-security functions: Provided further, That the departments and other agencies of the Government shall continue to collect, evaluate, correlate, and disseminate departmental intelligence: And provided further, That the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure).]”
5 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.