50 U.S.C. § 435
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1992–2013 · leading case: Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “) (appeals panel within the agency makes the “final” decision), reprinted as amended in 50 U.S.C. § 435 ; Exec. Order No. 10,865, § 3, 3 C.”
Students Against Genocide v. Dep't of State, 257 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “17, 1995), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 435 . 7 . Exec. Order No. 12,951, § 2, 60 Fed.”
Hall v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 881 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2012). “*67 Plaintiffs also argue that the DOD inappropriately invoked exemption 3 with 50 U.S.C. § 435 , which resulted in the redaction of names from 29 documents.”
Eric B. Halpern, Dr. v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, United States Dep't of Just., 181 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 1999). “2, 1982), reprinted as amended in 50 U.S.C. § 435 at 121-26 (1994). Halpern invokes the more liberal standards of Executive Order 12,958, which took effect on October 14, 1995, well after the agency decisions in question.”
Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir. 2008). “See 50 U.S.C. § 435 (a)(1) (stating that “no employee in the executive branch .”
Scott Armstrong, Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Exec. Off. of the President, Appellants/cross-Appellees, 90 F.3d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “166, 176 (1983), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 435 (1994). Under Executive Order No.”
Ctr. for Int'l Env't Law v. Off. of the United States Trade Rep., 237 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2002). “The Executive Order allows classification where the original classification authority determines that unauthorized disclosure “reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security,” and the original classification authority is “able to identify or describe…”
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def., 389 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “13292 in 50 U.S.C. § 435 [hereinafter E.O. 12958]; see also Exec.”
Makky v. Chertoff, 489 F. Supp. 2d 421 (D.N.J. 2007). “50 U.S.C. § 435 (a)(1); see also Exec. Order.”
Snyder v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 230 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2002). “17, 1995), reprinted in the Historical and Statutory Notes to 50 U.S.C. § 435 (West Supp.2002) (stating that information may not be classified unless it meets one of seven criteria, one of which concerns information regarding “intelligence sources or methods”); Students Against…”
United States v. Kim, 808 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2011). “196 (2004), reprinted, 50 U.S.C. § 435 note (2006). Furthermore, “[t]he unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to national security.”
Students Against Genocide v. Dep't of State, 50 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 1999). “5(c), reprinted in 50 U.S.C.A. § 435 note (West Supp.1998). In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant DIA states the following: As explained in the Richardson declaration, the information discussed in the document at issue was obtained from classified sources and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.