11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of Garland v. Dallas Morning Newsgreen2 sentences2025The deliberative process privilege does not except from 601 Open Records Decision Nos. 647 at 5-6 (1996), 615 at 5 (1993); see City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2000). 602 City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2000); Lett v. Klein Indep. 2025The deliberative process privilege does not except from 601 Open Records Decision Nos. 647 at 5-6 (1996), 615 at 5 (1993); see City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2000). 602 City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2000); Lett v. Klein Indep. | 4 | 6 |
V. Lamar Skelton v. United States Postal Servicegreen1 sentence2022“The purpose of the privilege is to protect the agency decision-making process from the inhibiting effect that disclosure of predecisional advisory opinions and recommendations might have on the ‘frank discussion of legal or policy matters’ in writing.” Skelton v. United States Postal Serv., 678 F.2d 35, 38 (5th Cir. 1982) (discussing statutorily created deliberative process privilege in Freedom of Information Act). | 1 | 1 |
Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas v. City of Dallasgreen2 sentences2022We conclude that the deliberative process privilege does not meet the Legislature’s requirement that a justification for withholding information presumed public be “compelling.” See Paxton, 509 S.W.3d at 258 (“The meaning of the term ‘compelling’ is of vital importance to our analysis because it represents a qualitative limitation on the justifications that permit withholding information from public disclosure.”). 2022See Paxton, 509 S.W.3d at 256 (“In some instances, important policies and interests that animate a statutory exception are compelling in their own right.”). | 1 | 1 |
Arlington In. Sch. Dist. v. Tex. Atty. Gen.green1 sentence2018See AISD, 37 S.W.3d at 161–63. | 1 | 1 |
Ethyl Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agencygreen2 sentences2000See Sears, 421 U.S. at 151-52 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 ; Mink, 410 U.S. at 87-91 , 93 S.Ct. 827 ; Ethyl Corp. v. United States E.P.A., 25 F.3d 1241, 1248 (4th Cir.1994); Petroleum Info. 2000See Sears, 421 U.S. at 151-52 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 ; Mink, 410 U.S. at 87-91 , 93 S.Ct. 827 ; Ethyl Corp. v. United States E.P.A., 25 F.3d 1241, 1248 (4th Cir.1994); Petroleum Info. | 1 | 1 |
Coastal States Gas Corporation v. Department of Energygreen2 sentences2000Federal courts have consistently held that the FOIA's agency memorandum exception includes the deliberative process privilege, as well as the attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges. [5] See National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 , 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975); Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 862 (D.C.Cir.1980). 2000Federal courts have consistently held that the FOIA’s agency memorandum exception includes the deliberative process privilege, as well as the attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges. 5 See National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 , 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975); Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 862 (D.C.Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green2 sentences2000Federal courts have consistently held that the FOIA's agency memorandum exception includes the deliberative process privilege, as well as the attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges. [5] See National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 , 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975); Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 862 (D.C.Cir.1980). 2000Federal courts have consistently held that the FOIA's agency memorandum exception includes the deliberative process privilege, as well as the attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges. [5] See National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 , 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975); Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 862 (D.C.Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782, Edward v. Hanlon, and Ruth A. Sanders Hanlon v. U.S. Department of Commercegreen2 sentences2000See AFGE, 907 F.2d 203, 207 (D.C.Cir.1990). 2000See id. at 208 ; see also Kalmin v. Department of Navy, 605 F.Supp. 1492 (D.D.C.1985) (holding that memoranda recording encounters with or observations about a Navy employee and used by the Navy in making personnel decisions were part of the deliberative process and were exempt under the FOIA). | 1 | 1 |
Kalmin v. Department of the Navygreen2 sentences2000See id. at 208 ; see also Kalmin v. Department of Navy, 605 F.Supp. 1492 (D.D.C.1985) (holding that memoranda recording encounters with or observations about a Navy employee and used by the Navy in making personnel decisions were part of the deliberative process and were exempt under the FOIA). 2000See id. at 208 ; see also Kalmin v. Department of Navy, 605 F.Supp. 1492 (D.D.C.1985) (holding that memoranda recording encounters with or observations about a Navy employee and used by the Navy in making personnel decisions were part of the deliberative process and were exempt under the FOIA). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vaughn v. Rosen
green
2 sentences2001Circuit examined the scope of the deliberative process privilege as incorporated within the agency memoranda exception in the Freedom of Information Act. 523 F.2d 1136 (D.C.Cir.1975). *159 In that case, the court considered whether the United States Civil Service Commission should be compelled to disclose "`Evaluation of Personnel Management' reports, as well as reports and studies of a similar nature." Id. at 1139 . 2001Circuit examined the scope of the deliberative process privilege as incorporated within the agency memoranda exception in the Freedom of Information Act. 523 F.2d 1136 (D.C.Cir.1975). *159 In that case, the court considered whether the United States Civil Service Commission should be compelled to disclose "`Evaluation of Personnel Management' reports, as well as reports and studies of a similar nature." Id. at 1139 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
City of Dallas v. Abbott
green
1 sentence2026So future courts—including the Third Court of Appeals—remain free to assess the deliberative-process privilege unconstrained by the holding below. 5 Game 1 According to our opinion in City of Dallas v. Abbott, 304 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2010), TCEQ’s shot clock didn’t start running until July 2, 2019. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Cornyn v. City of Garland
green
1 sentence2026The exception at issue in TCEQ’s declaratory-judgment action—the deliberative- process privilege—is the same exception as in its initial letter to OAG. 13 received in court.” Cornyn, 994 S.W.2d at 264 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath
green
1 sentence2018Deliberative Process The purpose of excepting privileged deliberative process information under section 552.111 is “to protect advice and opinions on policy matters and to encourage frank and open discussion within the agency in connection with its decision-making processes.” Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d at 412 ; see Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d at 364 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink
red
2 sentences2000The Court explained that the FOIA's agency memorandum exception, which exempts agency communications falling under the attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges in addition to the deliberative process privilege, was designed to promote "`frank discussion of legal and policy matters.'" Mink, 410 U.S. at 87 , 93 S.Ct. 827 (quoting S. REP. 2000The Court explained that the FOIA's agency memorandum exception, which exempts agency communications falling under the attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges in addition to the deliberative process privilege, was designed to promote "`frank discussion of legal and policy matters.'" Mink, 410 U.S. at 87 , 93 S.Ct. 827 (quoting S. REP. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Gary A. Soucie v. Edward E. David, Jr., Director, Office of Science and Technology
green
1 sentence1996The summary judgment described the sixty-four pages of documents as “memoranda, notes, opinions, recommendations, and advice incident to KISD’s investigation.” After finding that the documents were subject to discovery by law in litigation, the judgment stated that “this alone does not preclude exemption of the requested documents” and concludes that “the documents requested are exempt from publication pursuant to the deliberative process privilege incorporated into § 552.111 of the ORA.” The court based this decision on its finding that “the factual information derived from numerous meetings | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.