General Motors Corp. v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.2d 294 · 1981
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2002
11 federal appellate · 2 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 Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown · Texas v. Louisiana · American Meat Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency · Charles River Park "A", Inc. v. Department of Housing & Urban Development
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e have held that “the scope of § 1905 and Exemption 4 of the FOIA are, ... ‘the same,’ or, ... coextensive.’ Accordingly, material qualifying for exemption under (b)(4) falls within the material, disclosure of which is prohibited under § 1905. And this conclusion, as stated by us in Westinghouse, accords with the expression of congressional purpose in enacting the 1976 amendment of FOIA’s exemption (3).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Also, Sec. 1905's prohibition against disclosure does not categorize the information to be withheld and does not contain criteria for withholding, as required by subpart (B) of Exemption 3. Second, the legislative history of the 1976 amendment of Exemption 3 clearly states that Sec. 1905 was not intended to qualify as a nondisclosure statute. For example, the House Report states: 79 [T]he Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1905, which relates only to the disclosure of information where disclosure is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A failure of an agency to offer a fully reasoned basis for its decision in this or other relevant areas not only may invalidate an agency’s decision but may become a basis for consideration by the district court of the propriety of de novo review under § 706(2)(F).”
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.