Scherer v. Kelley’s Empirical Analysis
584 F.2d 170 · 1978
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 25 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably Ingraham v. United States (1987), Irons v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1987)
53 federal appellate · 25 district · 2 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 Foman v. Davis · Department of the Air Force v. Rose · Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. · Gilbert A. Cuneo v. James A. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(7) investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records would . . . (D) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of. a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““FBI affidavits which ‘comprehensively set forth the exemptions upon which [the] agency had relied when it excised portions of its file . . . and set forth the reasons underlying their use,’ were sufficient to sustain FBI claims of exemption. . . . We find this standard is in keeping with the purpose of the Act as expressed in its legislative history. . .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because a person may have given testimony at a trial on a specific topic does not mean that all information offered by that source upon a guarantee of confidentiality automatically becomes available to the person to whom it relates. The non-testimonial information may be far more damaging than any testimony freely given and may place the source in great peril. A source would be unlikely to testify on any subject if he or she know that by so doing every transcription made by an investigative agent regarding their conversations could be released to the party about whom the source was informing.”
2 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.