Cna Financial Corporation v. Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that Exemption 5 can extend even to documents shared between agencies and non-agency consultants
• holding that an agency's forecast of \what likely would ensue upon release of information\ is the type of judgment that \courts traditionally leave largely to agency expertise\ and \need not be supported by record evidence\
• holding that an agency’s forecast of “what likely would ensue upon release of information” is the type of judgment that “courts traditionally leave largely to agency expertise” and “need not be supported by record evidence”
• noting that the Supreme Court has “insisted on some clear evidence of congressional intent to work ‘a substantial change in accepted practice’ through [a statutory] revision”
• noting that the Supreme Court has “insisted on some clear evidence of congressional intent to work ‘a substantial change in accepted practice’ through [a statutory] revision”
• stating that “[t]o the extent that any data requested under FOIA are in the public domain, the submitter is unable to make any claim to confidentiality-a sine qua non of Exemption 4.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).