Washington Post Company v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

How courts have described this case

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

• framing the question as “whether public disclosure would cause individuals to so narrowly construe the requests for information ... that the government’s information-gathering ability would be seriously impaired”
• holding, in the FOIA context, that there was “a genuinely controverted factual issue in the case which is not ripe for disposition by summary judgment” because “[t]o resolve this case the judge must pick and choose between 37 competing experts’ affidavits as to the effect of disclosure”
• vacating summary judgment on ground that dueling affidavits created “controverted factual issue”
• reversing summary judgment based on conflicting experts' predictions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).