Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D. C., Inc. v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
603 F.2d 945 · 1979
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 58 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2017 · most notably Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson (1982), King v. United States Department of Justice (1987)
50 federal appellate · 58 district · 6 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 Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · Department of the Air Force v. Rose · National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. · Vaughn v. Rosen
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The index should be contained in one document, complete in itself. 2. The index must adequately describe each withheld document or deletion from a released document. 3. The index must state the exemption claimed for each deletion or withheld document, and explain why the exemption is relevant. Of course the explanation of the exemption claim and the descriptions of withheld material need not be so detailed as to reveal that which the agency wishes to conceal, but they must be sufficiently specific to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is actually exempt under FOIA.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[d]istrict [c]ourt decisions in FOIA cases must provide statements of law that are both accurate and sufficiently detailed to establish that the careful de novo review prescribed by Congress has in fact taken place.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ejxemption 3 is explicitly confined to material exempted from disclosure “by statute,” and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure simply do not satisfy this description. They are issued by the Supreme Court under rulemaking powers delegated by Congress. Although proposed rules may be rejected by Congress, they are not affirmatively adopted by the legislature, as all statutes must be.”
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.