Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 578 F.2d 261 - Marks v. United States

Marks v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

578 F.2d 261 · 1978

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 27 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Oglesby v. United States Department of the Army (1990), Toguchi v. Soon Hwang Chung (2004)

31 federal appellate · 27 district · 1 state decisions

31019781980199020002010decided

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)

Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · Hall v. Cole · Schmerler Ford, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · Bristol-Myers Co. 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data will not create a triable issue of fact.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[b]road sweeping requests lacking specificity are not sufficient.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “courts have been wary to prohibit this requirement from becoming a loophole through which federal agencies can deny the public access to legitimate information”
    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.