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 95 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 Trans-Pacific Policing Agreement v. United States Customs Service.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Trans-Pacific Policing Agreement v. United States Customs Service Anchor | green | “an affirmative duty to consider the segregability issue sua sponte.” | 34 |
| 2 | August v. Federal Bureau of Investigation | green | “strongly favors prompt disclosure, its nine enumerated exemptions are designed to protect those legitimate governmental and private interests that might be harmed by release of certain types of information.” | 23 |
| 3 | Trans-Pacific Policing Agreement v. United States Customs Service | green | “we believe that the district court had an affirmative duty to consider the segregability issue sua sponte ... even if the issue has not been specifically raised by the foia plaintiff.” | 20 |
| 4 | Oguaju v. United States | green | “does not include helping an individual obtain information for his personal use” | 18 |
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.