Solar Sources, Inc. And Amax Coal Company v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \we might give some weight to the appellants' argument\ that a factual basis was not established by the government's affidavit had judge not conducted in camera review
• stating that “[t]he Government need not establish that release of a particular document would actually interfere with an enforcement proceeding” (emphasis omitted)
• stating that, under the federal FOIA, the government need not establish that the release of a document would actually interfere with an enforcement proceeding
• upholding a district court’s refusal to order agency to undertake eight work- years of efforts to segregate non-exempt responsive material from exempt material
• describing a Vaughn index as “comprehensive listing of each withheld document cross‐referenced with the FOIA No. 10‐1628 Page 3 exemption that the Government asserts is applicable”
• “Imposing this burden upon the Government [of eight work years to identify all non-exempt information], as well as the reviewing courts, would conflict with the ‘practical approach’ that courts have taken in interpreting the Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).