Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 728 F.2d 1270 - Van Bourg Allen Weinberg Roger Carpet Linoleum and Soft Tile Workers Union Local v. National Labor Relations Board

Van Bourg Allen Weinberg Roger Carpet Linoleum and Soft Tile Workers Union Local v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis

728 F.2d 1270 · 1984

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
October 2019
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Minnis v. United States Department of Agriculture (1984), Professional Programs Group v. Department of Commerce (1994)

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

1301984199020002010decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)

Relies on Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink · National Labor Relations Board v. Wyman-Gordon Co. · United States Department of State v. Washington Post Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. · Getman v. National Labor Relations Board

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

  1. “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The case law thus identifies four factors to be balanced in weighing a claim of exemption for a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”: (1) the plaintiff’s interest in disclosure; (2) the public interest in disclosure; (3) the degree of the invasion of personal privacy; and (4) the availability of any alternative means of obtaining the requested information. In weighing the factors, we keep in mind that the invasion of privacy must be “clearly” unwarranted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “whether the district court had an adequate factual basis on which to make its decision,”
    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.