Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 682 F.2d 256 - Campbell v. Department of Health & Human Services

Campbell v. Department of Health & Human Services’s Empirical Analysis

682 F.2d 256 · 1982

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
1
states following
November 2019
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 30 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably Sussman v. United States Marshals Service (2007), Center for National Security Studies v. U.S. Department of Justice (2003)

44 federal appellate · 30 district · 1 state decisions

3901982199020002010decided

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 National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. · Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba · Coastal States Gas Corporation v. Department of Energy · Phillippi v. Central Intelligence Agency

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

  1. “categories... [that are] sufficiently distinct to allow a court to grasp `how each ... category of documents, if disclosed, would interfere with the investigation.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records would (A) interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication or constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (C) disclose the identity of an informer, or (D) disclose investigative techniques and procedures.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We hold that, to prevail under Exemption 7(A), the government must show, by more than conclusory statement, how the particular kinds of investigatory records requested would interfere with a pending enforcement proceeding.”
    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.