green
Positive treatment
Under Fire
13.7 score
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this
case.
This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Dissent
United States v. Daniel Brown
(2017)
“Agreeing with the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Franklin, 785 F.3d 1365 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 523 , 193 L.Ed.2d 412 (2015), we held that “advertising to a particular subset of the public is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the statute.” Grovo, 826 F.3d at 1218 .”
Concurrence
United States v. Wireman
(2017)
“I also write separately to question the wisdom of applying the “reasonableness” presumption to within-Guidelines sentences “regardless of [a particular Guideline’s] alleged lack of empirical support.” United States v. Franklin, 785 F.3d 1365, 1370 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —136 S.Ct. 523, 193 L.Ed.2d 412 (2015).”
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media
(2×)
See New Hampshire Right to Life v. Department of Health and Human Servs. , 577 U. S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 383 , 384, 193 L.Ed.2d 412 (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (noting that "every Court of Appeals to consider Exemption 4 has interpreted it [using] National Park[s] "); Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC , 975 F.2d 871 , 876 (CADC 1992) (en banc) (collecting cases).
discussed
Cited "see"
J. Donald Henson, Sr. v. HHS
See New Hampshire Right to Life v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 136 S. Ct. 383 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of cer- tiorari); Anderson v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 907 F.2d 936 , 944 (10th Cir. 1990) (adopting definition of “trade secret” narrower than agency’s definition); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (3) (defining “trade secret” for purposes of criminal law).
discussed
Cited "see"
Henson v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
(2×)
See New Hampshire Right to Life v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs. , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 383 , 193 L.Ed.2d 412 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Anderson v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 907 F.2d 936 , 944 (10th Cir. 1990) (adopting definition of "trade secret" narrower than agency's definition); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (3) (defining "trade secret" for purposes of criminal law).
discussed
Cited "see"
New Hampshire Right to Life & a. v. Director, New Hampshire Charitable Trusts Unit & a.
See Right to Life v. Dept. of Health & Human Serv’s, 778 F.3d 43, 49 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 383 (2015); see also Ramelb, Note, Public Health Care Funding: The Battle Over Planned Parenthood, 47 Val.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NEW HAMPSHIRE RIGHT TO LIFE
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 16, 2015.
David A. Cortman, Kevin H. Theriot, Steven H. Aden, M. Casey Mattox, Catherine G. Foster, Rory T. Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC, for Respondents., Michael J. Tierney, Counsel of Record, Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, PLLC, Manchester, NH, for Petitioner., Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant, Attorney General, Matthew M. Collette, Molly R. Silfen, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent., The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied., Though we often have considered other FOIA exemptions, we have never interpreted Exemption 4's exception for \trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.\" § 552(b)(4). In the meantime
which construed the word \"confidential\" in Exemption 4 by looking to legislative history and the \"legislative purpose which underlies the exemption.\" Id. | Courts of Appeals have declined to interpret the word \"confidential\" in Exemption 4 according to its ordinary meaning. Here
* * *
The First Circuit's decision warrants review. It perpetuates an unsupported interpretation of an important federal statute and further muddies an already amorphous test. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.