5 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 29 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 First Eastern Corporation v. Mainwaring.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | First Eastern Corporation v. Mainwaring Anchor | green | “(i) the relevance of the evidence sought to be protected; (ii) the availability of other evidence; (iii) the 'seriousness' of the litigation and the issues involved; (iv) the role of the government in the litigation; and (v) the possibility of future timidity by government emplo…” | 7 |
| 2 | First Eastern Corporation v. Mainwaring | green | “that were agencies forced to operate in a fishbowl, the frank exchange of ideas and opinions would cease and the quality of administrative decisions would consequently suffer.” | 7 |
| 3 | In Re Grand Jury. In the Matter of Granite Purchases for State Capital-Grand Jury Subpoena Number 86-1. Appeal of United States of America | green | “the party seeking disclosure may overcome the claim of privilege by showing a sufficient need for the material in the context of the facts or the nature of the case ... or by making a prima facie showing of misconduct.” | 6 |
| 4 | In Re Grand Jury. In the Matter of Granite Purchases for State Capital-Grand Jury Subpoena Number 86-1. Appeal of United States of America | green | “the ultimate purpose of this long-recognized privilege is to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions.” | 5 |
| 5 | United States v. William F. Farley | green | “communications made subsequent to an agency decision.” | 4 |
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.