Sweda v. Department of Highways

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “there is no explicit congressional grant of a right of a party to proceed anonymously”
• noting that when the plaintiff’s name was already in the public domain, a request to proceed anonymously was “equivalent to asking us to put jack back in the box”
• “In cases where the sensitive information has already been disclosed . . . the social interest in allowing a party to proceed anonymously is limited.”
• “In cases where the sensitive information has already been disclosed during a party’s prior litigation under its real name, the social interest in allowing a party to proceed anonymously is limited.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).