Adams Bros. v. Clark

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the defendant's effective denial of the records requested by the plaintiff was a \past injury [that did] not automatically portend future injury and confer standing to seek injunctive relief\
• concluding that the defendant’s effective denial of the records requested by the plaintiff was a “past injury [that did] not automatically portend future injury and confer standing to seek injunctive relief”
• explaining that an agency is not free to ignore “clear leads that may indicate other offices that 9 should have been searched” (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[A]n agency cannot ignore ‘clear leads that may indicate other offices that should have been searched.’” (quoting Rollins v. Dep’t of State, 70 F. Supp. 3d 546, 550 (D.D.C. 2014))
• “[T]he court finds that the 1996 and 2004 Letters constituted the type of ‘clear lead’ that required the DEA to expand its initial search to include the office of the Deputy Assistant Administrator.”
• “[A]n agency cannot ignore ‘clear leads . . . [that] may indicate . . . other offices that should have been searched.’” (quoting Rollins v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 70 F. Supp. 3d 546, 550 (D.D.C. 2014))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).