Wilson v. U.S. Department of Transportation

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 plaintiff, who agreed to narrow his FOIA request “cannot now argue that he meant something else”
• holding that agency reasonably interpreted request for “all EEO complaints . . . held in the Office of Civil Rights/EEO” as being limited to “formal complaints, instead of informal records such as counseling logs”
• explaining that once a requester “agree[s] to [an] interpretation” of his request proposed by the agency, he “cannot . . . argue that he meant something else”
• holding that name of EEO complainant was properly withheld
• “Having agreed to that interpretation [of his FOIA request], [the plaintiff] cannot now argue that he meant something .else.”
• finding failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to two FOIA requests, where although plaintiff “complain[ed] to several offices within [Department of Transportation (‘DOT’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).