Sidney Curtis Davis v. Walter Ridley, 968 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Sidney Curtis Davis v. Walter Ridley, 968 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
77 citation events (59 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Homeland Security (dcd, 2010-09-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Homeland Security
D.D.C. · 2010 · confidence medium
Exemption 7(E) Exemption 7(E) of the FOIA protects from disclosure “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information ... would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(E); see Long v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 450 F.Supp.2d 42, 79 (D.D.C. 2006); Blanton v. U.S…
discussed Cited "see" Curry v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
D.D.C. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
Cir. 2009); see Fisher v. DOJ, 772 F. Supp. 7, 12 (D.D.C. 1991) (upholding FBI's decision to withhold information about law enforcement techniques where disclosure would impair effectiveness and, within context of documents, could alert subjects of investigations “about techniques used to aid the FBI”), aff'd, 968 F.2d 92 (D.C.
examined Cited "see" Boyd v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (3×)
D.D.C. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Garza v. United States Marshal Service
D.D.C. · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Fisher v. United States Dep't of Justice, 772 F. Supp. 7, 12 (D.D.C. 1991) (upholding FBI's decision to withhold information about law enforcement techniques where disclosure would impair effectiveness and, within context of documents, “could alert subjects in drug investigations about techniques used to aid the FBI”), aff'd, 968 F.2d 92 (D.C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sidney Curtis Davis
v.
Walter Ridley
90-5207.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jun 25, 1992.
968 F.2d 92
Unpublished

968 F.2d 92

296 U.S.App.D.C. 356

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
Sidney Curtis DAVIS, Appellant,
v.
Walter RIDLEY.

Nos. 90-5207, 90-7115.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 25, 1992.

Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, and HARRY T. EDWARDS and RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

1

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the court's order to show cause filed May 4, 1992, and the response thereto, it is

2

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

3

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted, substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order filed June 8, 1990. Appellant concedes that the issues raised on appeal are controlled by Poole v. Kelly, 954 F.2d 760 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam), and that, accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance must be granted.

4

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.