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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 23 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 Hamdan v. United States Department of Justice.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hamdan v. United States Department of Justice Anchor | green | “conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” | 7 |
| 2 | Wiener v. Federal Bureau of Investigation | green | “specificity is the defining requirement of the vaughn index.” | 6 |
| 3 | Pacific Fisheries, Inc. v. United States | green | “the burden is on the agency to establish that all reasonably segregable portions of a document have been segregated and disclosed.” | 6 |
| 4 | Hamdan v. United States Department of Justice | green | “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” | 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.