Ferri v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
645 F.2d 1213 · 1981
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (1981), McDonnell v. United States (1993)
52 federal appellate · 8 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 18 U.S.C. § 2519 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 534 (National Law) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Paul v. Davis · National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · Department of the Air Force v. Rose · 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . The proper approach to Ferri’s request under a privacy-based exemption such as 7(C) is a de novo balancing test, weighing the privacy interest and the extent to which it is invaded, on the one hand, against the public benefit that would result from disclosure on the other, (citations omitted)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the motivation behind Ferri’s request is ... personal, a FOIA request for material implicating the Brady rule simultaneously advances an 'indirect public purpose' satisfying the second prong of the test for disclosure under one of the privacy-based exemptions.”), modified, 671 F.2d 769 , 771 (3d Cir.1982) (per curiam) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“And if the agency is unable to articulate publicly the specific disclosure it fears and the specific harm that would ensue, then in camera inspection of a more detailed affidavit must be resorted to. See Phillippi v. Central Intelligence Agency, supra, 546 F.2d at 1013 .”
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.