International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 5 v. United States Dept. of Housing & Urban Development’s Empirical Analysis
852 F.2d 87 · 1988
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably McDonnell v. United States (1993), Hopkins v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (1991)
20 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 40 U.S.C. § 14701 · 40 U.S.C. § 3142 (Davis-Bacon Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Department of the Air Force v. Rose · United States Department of State v. Washington Post Co. · Sigmond v. United States · Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. Coutu · United States Department of Justice v. Julian
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the release of names and addresses of employees of government contractors makes it more likely that contractors will abide by the Act’s requirements, the release of the information is in the public interest. Although the redacted wage reports would in some cases enable the Union to detect violations of the Davis-Bacon Act, they provide no means for auditing the representations of the contractor. If the contractor misrepresents his weekly wage information, the only way to determine if the Davis-Bacon act is being violated is to contact the contractor’s employees and to compare their responses to those given by the contractor. We conclude, therefore, that the release of the names and addresses would facilitate the Union’s investigation of possible Davis-Bacon Act violations, and thereby would further the public interest. * * * * * * [T]he mere fact that federal agencies are directly responsible for enforcing the Davis-Bacon Act does not mean that the Union has no role to play in furthering the public interest. If enforcement of the Act is in the public interest, then more effective enforcement of the Act is also in the public interest. * # * * * * Moreover, the Union’s interest in monitoring HUD’s enforcement of the Davis Bacon Act is exactly the kind of public interest Congress intended FOIA to facilitate. ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ij: The Union need not show that the information it seeks will in fact prove useful .... the fact that the Union has a proprietary interest in protecting its ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“one of the most serious manifestations of privacy concerns in the Nation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“determine whether the information sought is subject to privacy protection and, if so, whether the invasion of privacy is 'clearly unwarranted.' This inquiry involves a balancing of the public interest served by disclosure against the harm resulting from the invasion of privacy.”
3 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.