Stewart v. United States Department of the Interior

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that consultant’s materials were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 5 because “[f]or purposes of [a FOIA] analysis” the consultant “functioned akin to an agency employee”
• holding that consultant’s materials were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 5 because “[f]or purposes of [a FOIA] analysis” the consultant “functioned akin to an agency employee”
• holding that consultant’s materials were properly withheld pursuant to 36 ROJAS V. FAA Exemption 5 because “[f]or purposes of [a FOIA] analysis” the consultant “functioned akin to an agency employee”
• stating incorrectly that Klamath had definitively “recogniz[ed] that Exemption 5 extends to government agency communications with paid consultants”
• “In Klamath, after recognizing that Exemption 5 extends to government agency communications with paid consultants, the Court declined to analogize tribal communications to consultant communications.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).