64 Md. App. 375 - Kline v. Fuller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. ““(1) the benefit to the public, if any, derived from the suit; (2) the nature of the complainant’s interest in the released information; and (3) whether the agency’s withholding of the information had a reasonable basis in law.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kirwan v. the Diamondback · 166 Md. App. 190 - Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. v. University of Maryland

2. “(1) Under the first criterion — public benefit — “a court would ordinarily award fees, for example, where a newsman was seeking information to be used in a publication or a public interest group was seeking information to further a project benefitting the general public, but it would not award fees if a business was using the FOIA to obtain data relating to a competitor or as a substitute for discovery in private litigation with the government.” Id. at 19. (2) Under the second criterion — commercial benefit to the complainant — a court would usually allow recovery where the complainant was indigent or a nonprofit public interest group but would not allow recovery “if it was a large corporate interest (or a representative of such an interest).” Id. (3) Under the third criterion — the nature of the complainant’s interest in the records — a court would generally award fees “if the complainant’s interest in the information sought was scholarly or journalistic or public-interest oriented, but would not do so if his interest was of a frivolous or purely commercial nature.” Id. (4) Under the fourth criterion — reasonableness of the non-disclosure — “a court would not award fees where the government’s withholding had a colorable basis in law but would ordinarily award them if the withholding appeared to be merely to avoid embarrassment or to frustrate the requester.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. v. University of Maryland

3. “The [MPIA] establishes a public policy and a general presumption in favor of disclosure of government or public documents. [Sections 10-612(a) and (b) of the State Government Article] provide: (a) General Right to information. — All persons are entitled to have access to information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. (b) General construction. — To carry out the right set forth in subsection (a) of this section, unless an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a person in interest would result, this Part III of this subtitle shall be construed in favor of permitting inspection of a public record, with the least cost and least delay to the person or governmental unit that requests the inspection. The statute also contains a broad definition of a “public record.” [6] Section 10-613(a) of the Act states that, “[except as otherwise provided by law, a custodian shall permit a person or governmental unit to inspect any public record at any reasonable time.” Sections 10-615 through 10-617 delineate certain public records which are not disclosable, and § 10-618 deals with “permissible denials.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 Md. App. 190 - Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. v. University of Maryland