Dent v. Executive Office for the United States Attorneys (2013)
green
· 25 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 12 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201420202026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Haleem v. Department of Defense (2024)
U.S. Att’ys, 926 F. Supp. 2d 257, 272 (D.D.C. 2013) (“Notwithstanding the categorical protection to law enforcement techniques and procedures afforded under the first clause of Exemption 7(E), no agency can rely on a declaration written in vague terms or in a conclusory manner.”) (citation omitted).
“Notwithstanding the categorical protection to law enforcement techniques and procedures afforded under the first clause of Exemption 7(E), no agency can rely on a declaration written in vague terms or in a conclusory manner.”
green
Groenendal v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (2024)
Advancing no “compelling evidence” beyond conspiratorial allegations of misconduct, see id. at 1205–06, he cannot demonstrate a public interest outweighing the privacy interests at stake, see Dent v. EOUSA, 926 F. Supp. 2d 257, 269 (D.D.C. 2013) (“It is a FOIA requester’s obligation to articulate a public interest sufficient to outweigh an individual’s privacy interest, and the public interest must be significant.”).
“It is a FOIA requester’s obligation to articulate a public interest sufficient to outweigh an individual’s privacy interest, and the public interest must be significant.”
green
Ramaci v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation (2021)
Instead, the Supreme Court adopted a “particularized approach” to the application of Exemption 7(D), placing special emphasis on two factors: “the character of the crime at issue” and “the source’s relation to the crime.” Id. at 179-180 ; see also id. at 174 ; Dent v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 926 F. Supp. 2d 257, 263 (D.D.C. 2013) (“[A] source’s confidentiality must be determined on a case-by-case basis.”).
“[A] source’s confidentiality must be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
green
Woodward v. United States Department of Justice (2021)
Off. for U.S. Att’ys, 926 F. Supp. 2d 257, 272 (D.D.C 2013) (“Notwithstanding the categorical protection to law enforcement techniques and procedures afforded under the first clause of Exemption 7(E) . . . no agency can rely on declarations written in vague terms or in a conclusory manner.”).
“Notwithstanding the categorical protection to law enforcement techniques and procedures afforded under the first clause of Exemption 7(E) . . . no agency can rely on declarations written in vague terms or in a conclusory manner.”
green
Watson v. U.S. Department of Justice (2020)
Office for U.S. Attorneys, 926 F. Supp. 2d 257, 269 (D.D.C. 2013) (“It is a FOIA requester’s obligation to articulate a public interest sufficient to outweigh an individual’s privacy interest, and the public interest must be significant.”).
“It is a FOIA requester’s obligation to articulate a public interest sufficient to outweigh an individual’s privacy interest, and the public interest must be significant.”
green
Sai v. Transportation Security Administration (2020)
Office for U.S. Attorneys, 926 F. Supp. 2d 257, 267 (D.D.C. 2013); see also Prison Legal News v. Lappin, 780 F. Supp. 2d 29 , 45–46 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[T]he FOIA does not require agencies to ‘organize documents to facilitate FOIA responses.’” (quoting Goulding v. IRS, No. 97-5628, 1998 WL 325202 , at *5 (N.D.
green
Sai v. Transportation Security Administration (2020)
Office for U.S. Attorneys, 926 F. Supp. 2d 257, 267 (D.D.C. 2013); see also Prison Legal News v. Lappin, 780 F. Supp. 2d 29 , 45–46 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[T]he FOIA does not require agencies to ‘organize documents to facilitate FOIA responses.’” (quoting Goulding v. IRS, No. 97-5628, 1998 WL 325202 , at *5 (N.D.
green
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (2015)
See id. at 272-73 (“FBI cannot rely upon the vaguely worded categorical description it has provided, and must instead provide evidence from which the Court can deduce something of the nature of the techniques in question.”).
“FBI cannot rely upon the vaguely worded categorical description it has provided, and must instead provide evidence from which the Court can deduce something of the nature of the techniques in question.”
green
Dillon v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2015)
Office for U.S. Attorneys, 926 F.Supp.2d 257, 265-67 (2013) (finding adequate the FBI’s search of its Central Records System, in response to the plaintiffs FOIA request).
finding adequate the FBI’s search of its Central Records System, in response to the plaintiffs FOIA request
Office for U.S. Attorneys, 926 F.Supp.2d 257, 265-67 (finding adequate the FBI’s search of its Central Records System, in response to the plaintiffs FOIA request).
(Pltf.’s Mot. at 15). “[T]he agency need not identify a specific final agency decision.” See Dent v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 926 F.Supp.2d 257, 268 (D.D.C.2013).
green
Webster v. United States Department of Justice (2020)
See Dent v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 926 F. Supp. 2d 257, 269 (D.D.C. 2013) (names and identifying information of FBI Special Agents and support personnel); Amuso v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 600 F. Supp. 2d 78, 95 (D.D.C. 2009) (names and ranks of local law enforcement personnel).
names and identifying information of FBI Special Agents and support personnel