Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 37 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Scott Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scott Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President Anchor | green | “show with reasonable specificity why the documents cannot be further segregated,” | 9 |
| 2 | Covington v. McLeod | green | “segregation is not required where the 'exempt and nonexempt information are inextricably intertwined, such that the excision of exempt information would impose significant costs on the agency and produce an edited document with little informational value.” | 7 |
| 3 | Thompson v. United States Department of Justice Criminal Division | green | “is analyzed under the same standard” | 6 |
| 4 | Physicians for Human Rights v. U.S. Department of Defense | green | “agencies have discretion in crafting lists of search terms that they believe to be reasonably tailored to uncover documents responsive to the foia request.” | 5 |
| 5 | Justice v. Internal Revenue Service | green | “discovery in foia is rare and should be denied where an agency's declarations are reasonably detailed and submitted in good faith and where the court is satisfied that no factual dispute remains.” | 5 |
| 6 | Agility Public Warehousing Company K.S.C. v. National Security Agency | green | “where the search terms are reasonably calculated to lead to responsive documents, the court should not 'micro manage' the agency's search.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.