General Electric Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining APA claim was precluded because plaintiff sought release of documents, which is available under FOIA
• applying three-part test to Golmar response declining to confirm or deny existence of records relating to alleged confidential informant
• “Simply because the [plaintiffs] do not prevail on their claims does not make them subject to the exclusive review the APA provides.”
• “We have explained on numerous occasions that the decision whether to perform in camera inspection 6 is left to the broad discretion of the trial court judge.” (quotation marks omitted)
• “[T]here must be some ‘good reason’ to reconsider an issue already litigated by the parties and decided by the court, such as new information, a misunderstanding, or a clear error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).