Sussman v. United States Marshals Service

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \the district court must make specific findings of segregability regarding the documents to be withheld” only \[bjefore approving the application of a FOIA exemption”
• holding that some evidence of impropriety is required to overcome the presumption that an agency has complied with its duty to segregate material
• holding that Exemption 7(C) protects “the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records, whether they be investigators, suspects, witnesses, or informants,” and their names are “generally exempt from disclosure”
• holding that Exemption 7(C) protects “the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records, whether they be investigators, suspects, witnesses, or informants,” and their names are “generally exempt from disclosure”
• holding that Exemption 7(C) protects “the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records, whether they be investigators, suspects, witnesses, or informants,” and their names are “generally exempt from disclosure”
• holding that Exemption 7(C) protects “the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records, whether they be investigators, suspects, witnesses, or informants,” and their names are “generally exempt from disclosure”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).