Boulder Fruit Express v. Transp. Factoring, Inc., 534 U.S. 1133 (2002). · Go Syfert
Boulder Fruit Express v. Transp. Factoring, Inc., 534 U.S. 1133 (2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lasko v. United States Department of Justice (dcd, 2010-02-17)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Lasko v. United States Department of Justice
D.D.C. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Nation Magazine v. United States Customs Serv., 71 F.3d at 894 ; see Rugiero v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 552 (6th Cir.2001) (concluding that the agency properly withheld “identifying information on agents, personnel, and third parties after balancing the privacy interests against public disclosure”), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1134 , 122 S.Ct. 1077 , 151 L.Ed.2d 978 (2002).
discussed Cited "see" Kurdyukov v. United States Coast Guard
D.D.C. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Circuit has consistently held that [Exemption 7(C) protects the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records, including investigators, suspects, witnesses and informants, and has determined that such third-party information is categorically exempt from disclosure under [Exemption 7(C), in the absence of an overriding public interest in its disclosure.” Lewis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 609 F.Supp.2d 80, 84 (D.D.C.2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Rugiero v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 552 (6th Cir.2001) (concluding that agency pro…
discussed Cited "see" Amuso v. United States Department of Justice
D.D.C. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Nation Magazine v. United *97 States Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 894 (D.C.Cir.1995); see Rugiero v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 552 (6th Cir.2001) (concluding that agency properly withheld “identifying information on agents, personnel, and third parties after balancing the privacy interests against public disclosure”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1134 , 122 S.Ct. 1077 , 151 L.Ed.2d 978 (2002).
discussed Cited "see" Lewis-Bey v. United States Department of Justice
D.D.C. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Nation Magazine v. United States Customs Seru., 71 F.3d 885, 894 (D.C.Cir.1995); see Rugiero v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 552 (6th Cir.2001) (concluding that agency properly withheld “identifying information on agents, personnel, and third parties after balancing the privacy interests against public disclosure”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1134 , 122 S.Ct. 1077 , 151 L.Ed.2d 978 (2002); Computer Prof Is for Soc.
discussed Cited "see" Schiller v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
W.D. Tex. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
Broaddrick v. Executive Office of the President, 139 F.Supp.2d 55, 63 (D.D.C.2001); see Rugiero v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 544 (6th Cir.2001) (acknowledging that typically district courts dispose of FOIA cases by summary judgment before plaintiff is able to conduct discovery), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1077 , 151 L.Ed.2d 978 (2002); Miscavige v. Internal Revenue Serv., 2 F.3d 366, 369 (11th Cir.1993) (denial of leave to take depositions of IRS agents within discretion of court; FOIA cases generally handled on motions for summary judgment; discovery deposition…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Singh v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
D.D.C. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Rugiero v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 552 (6th Cir.2001) (concluding that agency properly withheld “identifying information on agents, personnel, and third parties after balancing the privacy interests against public disclosure”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1134 , 122 S.Ct. 1077 , 151 L.Ed.2d 978 (2002); SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Banks v. Department of Justice
D.D.C. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Rugiero v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 552 (6th Cir.2000) (concluding that agency properly withheld “identifying information on agents, personnel, and third parties after balancing the privacy interests against public disclosure”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1134 , 122 S.Ct. 1077 , 151 L.Ed.2d 978 (2002); SafeCard Servs., Inc., 926 F.2d at 1206 (holding that “names and addresses of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of Exemption 7(C) [are] exempt from disclosure”); Keys, 510 F.Supp.2d at 129 (concluding that names of and identifying infor…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robinson v. Attorney General of the United States
D.D.C. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Rugiero v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 552 (6th Cir.2001) (concluding that agency properly withheld identifying information on agents, personnel, and third parties after balancing the privacy interests against public disclosure), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1134 , 122 S.Ct. 1077 , 151 L.Ed.2d 978 (2002); SafeCard Servs., Inc., 926 F.2d at 1206 (holding that “names and address of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of Exemption 7(C)” are exempt from disclosure).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ray v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
D.D.C. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Rugiero v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 552 (6th Cir.2000) (concluding that agency properly withheld “identifying information on agents, personnel, and third parties after balancing the privacy interests against public disclosure”), cert, denied, 534 U.S. 1134 , 122 S.Ct. 1077 , 151 L.Ed.2d 978 (2002); SafeCard Serv., Inc. v. Securites and Exchange Comm’n, 926 F.2d at 1206 (holding that “names and address of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of Exemption 7(C) [are] exempt from disclosure”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." DiPietro v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys
D.D.C. · 2004 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Rugiero v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 549 (6th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1134 , 122 S.Ct. 1077 , 151 L.Ed.2d 978 (2002) (protecting grand jury transcripts, exhibits, and identities of witnesses); see also Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v. Nat’l Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 869 (D.C.Cir.1981) (information that would reveal identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of the testimony, the strategy or direction of the investigation, and grand jury deliberations are protected from disclosure). 3.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Boulder Fruit Express
v.
Transportation Factoring, Inc., dba Transfac
No. 01-905.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 2002.
534 U.S. 1133
Published

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.