672 F. Supp. 2d 54 - Friedman v. Sebelius’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district ·

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

1. “[T]he presumption in favor of disclosure has led this jurisdiction to caution that access may be denied only if the district court, after considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case, and after weighing the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts, concludes that justice so requires. The court’s discretion must clearly be informed by this country’s strong tradition of access to judicial proceedings. In balancing the competing interests, the court must also give appropriate weight and consideration to the presumption however gauged in favor of public access to judicial records.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Thomas

2. “to maintain a blanket seal of the case rather than requesting only that the allegedly damaging portions of the record remain under seal-despite the fact that the purported harm [would] be caused by the release of only a few documents in the record.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re McCormick & Co., Inc., Pepper Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.

3. “a party seeking to seal court documents must 'come forward with specific reasons why the record, or any part thereof, should remain under seal.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re McCormick & Co., Inc., Pepper Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.