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 6 cases, quoted by 22 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 Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Locke.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Locke Anchor | green | “modified foia's provision for the recovery of attorney fees to ensure that foia complainants who relied on the catalyst theory to obtain an award of attorney fees would not be subject to the buckhannon proscription.” | 4 |
| 2 | Mark Batton v. Internal Revenue Service | green | “congress amended the foia to incorporate the catalyst theory.” | 3 |
| 3 | Exner v. Federal Bureau of Investigation | green | “has as its fundamental purpose the facilitation of citizen access to the courts to vindicate the public's statutory rights,” | 3 |
| 4 | Exner v. Federal Bureau of Investigation | green | “it was unlikely, in the district court's view, that the action would have produced such favorable results, without the 'dogged determination' of plaintiff.” | 3 |
| 5 | New York Times Co. v. United States Deparment of Justice | green | “whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the doj white paper.” | 3 |
| 6 | Conservation Force v. Jewell | green | “the catalyst analysis is all about causation” | 3 |
| 7 | John Guido v. Mount Lemmon Fire District | green | “threatens to destroy the entire statutory scheme.” | 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.