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.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 373 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 National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish Anchor | green | “the requester must produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged government impropriety might have occurred.” | 144 |
| 2 | National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish | green | “where the privacy concerns addressed by exemption 7(c) are present, ... the requester must show that the public interest sought to be advanced is a significant one, an interest more specific than having the information for its own sake and that ... the information is likely to a…” | 114 |
| 3 | National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish | green | “where there is a privacy interest protected by exemption 7(c) and the public interest being asserted is to show that responsible officials acted negligently or otherwise improperly in the performance of their duties, the requester must establish more than a bare suspicion in ord…” | 35 |
| 4 | John Davis v. United States Department of Justice | green | “balance the privacy interests that would be compromised by disclosure against the public interest in release of the requested information.” | 26 |
| 5 | Moore v. Aspin | green | “once the agency has shown that its search was reasonable, the burden shifts to plaintiff to rebut defendant's evidence by a showing that the search was not conducted in good faith.” | 26 |
| 6 | American Civil Liberties Union v. Central Intelligence Agency | green | “can overcome a glomar response by showing that the agency has already disclosed the fact of the existence (or nonexistence) of responsive records, since that is the purportedly exempt information that a glomar response is designed to protect.” | 25 |
| 7 | Bartko v. United States Department of Justice | green | “confirming or denying the existence of records would' itself reveal protected information.” | 3 |
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.