Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTHONY ROBERSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02431 (CJN) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Anthony Roberson, a Texas state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation unde

MEMORANDUM JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Mark Allen’s application for an interim award of attorney’s fees and costs. Under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a court may award reasonable attorney fees to a complainant who has “substantially prevailed.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (1982). For the reasons stated below, the Court denies plaintiff’s application wit

551 F.Supp. 694 (1982) Mark A. ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 81-1206. United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 19, 1982. *695 James H. Lesar, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Stephen Hart, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for FBI. Stanley M.

MEMORANDUM OPINION LAMBERTH, District Judge. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief to their Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Regarding their Second Request to the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”) Regarding ARMS E-mail. This court issued a prior ruling, on May 17, 2000, on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Production of Documents. In that or

722 F.Supp. 1137 (1989) Herman Benjamin FERGUSON, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. No. 89 Civ. 5071 (RPP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 24, 1989. *1138 Center For Constitutional Rights, New York City by Joan P. Gibbs, Stephanie Y. Moore, Colin Moore, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiff.<

707 F.Supp. 891 (1988) Bernardo M. PEREZ v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al. No. EP-87-CA-10. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division. September 30, 1988. On Issues Relative to Grand Jury Subpoena December 2, 1988. As Amended December 8, 1988. On Motion for Protective Order February 7, 1989.

691 F.Supp. 1548 (1988) Donald ROCHON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 87-3008. United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 11, 1988. *1549 *1550 *1551 David Kairys, Adam Thurschwell, an

[Cite as State v. Hart, 2022-Ohio-4550.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 29252 : v.

673 F.Supp. 949 (1987) Sandra STRUTH, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. No. 82-C-51. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. October 30, 1987. *950 *951 *952 Curry First, Perry, First, Lerner, Quindel & Kuhn, Milwaukee, Wis

OPINION EN BANC BREYER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs in this case, academic historians researching the McCarthy Era, have sued the government under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986). The plaintiffs want the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to give them information contained in the FBI’s Smith Act prosecutions file, information that would reveal what c

605 F.Supp. 306 (1981) Roger FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. C78-309A. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. October 6, 1981. October 5, 1984. *307 *308 *309 R

WINTER, Circuit Judge. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) appeals from a decision by Magistrate Latimer directing the release of certain information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1976) (“FOIA”). Chief Judge Daly adopted and approved his ruling. We reverse and remand. BACKGROUND In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the FBI had a continuing investig

579 F.Supp. 1111 (1983) Michael DONOVAN, William Ford, James Kazel and Judy Keogh, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. No. 82 Civ. 4776(RWS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 12, 1983. On Motion for Reconsideration February 8, 1984. *1112 *11

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge. William Kiraly appeals the summary judgment entered against him in his suit to enforce disclosure of certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552.1 After conducting an in camera review, the district court concluded that the documents were properly withheld under the exemption provisions of the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). We Affir

*617Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), does not require the disclosure of “investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes” when the release of such records would interfere with effective law enforcement, impede the administration of justice, cons

03/01/2018 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs in Knoxville, November 28, 2017 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KIMBERLY JOHNSON HART Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County No. 24609 Robert L. Jones, Judge ___________________________________

728 F.2d 273 William KIRALY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; William H. Webster,Director; Cleveland Office, FBI; Stanley Czarnecki,Special Agent; Dept. of Justice; Benjamin R. Civilletti,Acting Attorney General; Department of the Treasury, Bureauof Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; John G. Krogman,Director, Defendants-Appellees. No. 82-3265. Un

511 F.Supp. 758 (1981) Arnold ABRAMS, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, United States Department of Justice and Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants. No. 79 C 680. United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D. April 21, 1981. *759 Robert M. Hodge, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Thomas P. Sullivan, U. S

630 F.2d 114 6 Media L. Rep. 1888 Steven Harris KEENEY, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Clarence M. Kelley,Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United StatesDepartment of Justice, and Edward H. Levi, Attorney Generalof the United States, Defendants-Appellants. No. 1037, Docket 79-6267. United States Court of Appeals,Se

[Cite as State v. Hart, 2017-Ohio-4079.] haCOURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JUDGES: STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. John W. Wise, J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon