10 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 55 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 Capital Newspapers Division of the Hearst Corp. v. Burns.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Capital Newspapers Division of the Hearst Corp. v. Burns Anchor | green | “exemptions are to be narrowly construed to provide maximum access, and the agency seeking to prevent disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls squarely within a foil exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for …” | 10 |
| 2 | Fink v. Lefkowitz | green | “the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is anathematic to our form of government” | 10 |
| 3 | Capital Newspapers Division of the Hearst Corp. v. Burns | green | “particularized and specific justification for denying access” | 8 |
| 4 | Capital Newspapers Division of the Hearst Corp. v. Burns | green | “articulate a particularized and specific justification for denying access” | 5 |
| 5 | Capital Newspapers v. Whalen | green | “foil is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government” | 5 |
| 6 | Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York, Inc. v. New York State Department of Social Services | green | “the agency seeking to prevent disclosure bears the burden of demonstrating the applicability of the particular exemption claimed” | 5 |
| 7 | Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine | green | “make available for public inspection and copying all records,” | 4 |
| 8 | Verizon New York, Inc. v. Bradbury | green | “falls squarely within the ambit of one of the statutory exemptions” | 4 |
| 9 | Madera v. Elmont Public Library | green | “foil requires that state and municipal agencies 'make available for public inspection and copying all records,' subject to certain exemptions” | 2 |
| 10 | Dobranski v. Houper | green | “offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities” | 2 |
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.