D.C. Circuit· 1/30/2004

Wilbur v. Central Intelligence Agency

Citations

355 F.3d 675
359 U.S. App. D.C. 380
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1399
2004 WL 177445

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that “the policies underlying the exhaustion requirement ha[d] been served” despite the plaintiff’s “failure to comply with the [agency’s] FOIA appeal deadline”
holding that “exhaustion of administrative remedies is a mandatory prerequisite to a lawsuit under FOIA”
holding that “failure to exhaust precludes judicial review if ‘the purposes of exhaustion’ and the ‘particular administrative scheme’ support such a bar” (citations omitted)
holding that “[e]xhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required before seeking judicial review”
holding that “[e]xhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required before seeking judicial review”
holding that the “purposes and policies underlying the exhaustion requirement” are “to prevent premature interference with agency processes, to give the parties and the courts [the] benefit of the agency’s experience and expertise and to compile an adequate record for review”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Henderson, Per Curiam, Randolph, Tatel

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

329 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Wilbur v. Central Intelligence Agency

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Wilbur v. Central Intelligence Agency
District of Columbia· 2003-04-08· cited 33×

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.