Doyle v. Behan’s Empirical Analysis
670 F.2d 535 · 1982
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2005
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 38 U.S.C. § 3301 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. · Karas v. United States · Hanberry v. Murphy Oil Corp · Savarese v. United States Department of Health, Education & Welfare · 471 F. Supp. 180 - King v. Califano
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains.... ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he only disclosure actionable under section 552a(b) is one resulting from a retrieval of the information initially and directly from the record contained in the system of records.... “... The interpretation contended for by plaintiff — that section 552a(b) is violated if agency personnel disclose information they possess by means other than retrieval from a system of records if they know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the information may also be found in a record contained in a system of records — would create an intolerable burden and would expand the Privacy Act beyond the limits of its purpose, which is to preclude a system of records from serving as the source of personal information about a person that is then disclosed without the person’s prior consent.””
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.