Fielding M. McGehee III v. Central Intelligence Agency
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- The Washington Post Company v. United States Department of State (D.C. Cir. 1988)
- Cynthia King v. United States Department of Justice (D.C. Cir. 1987)
- Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Gutierrez (District Court, D. Oregon 2006)
- Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President (District Court, District of Columbia 1993)
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. National Security Agency (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. National Security Agency (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
- Marc Truitt v. Department of State (D.C. Cir. 1990)
- Marzen v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1986)
- The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice Environmental Defense Fund v. Office of Management and Budget (D.C. Cir. 1984)
- Harold Weisberg v. U.S. Department of Justice, (Two Cases). Harold Weisberg v. U.S. Department of Justice. (Two Cases) (D.C. Cir. 1984)
- Patrick Eddington v. DOD (D.C. Cir. 2022)
- Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Land Management (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2020)
- Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (District Court, District of Columbia 2019)
- Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin. (D.C. Cir. 2019)
- Shapiro v. Central Intelligence Agency (District Court, District of Columbia 2017)
- Wadelton v. Department of State (District Court, District of Columbia 2016)
- Chambers v. United States Department of the Interior (D.C. Cir. 2009)
- Greenberg v. United States Department of Treasury (District Court, District of Columbia 1998)
- Blazy v. Tenet (District Court, District of Columbia 1997)
- State of Hawai'i Organization of Police Officers v. Society of Professional Journalists-University of Hawai'i Chapter (Haw. 1996)
- Katz v. National Archives & Records Administration (District Court, District of Columbia 1994)
- Dow Jones & Co. v. General Services Administration (District Court, District of Columbia 1989)
- Mayock v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1989)
- Tax Analysts v. United States Department of Justice (D.C. Cir. 1988)
- James Miller v. United States Department of State (8th Cir. 1986)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Fielding M. McGEHEE, III, Appellant
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
No. 82-1096.
United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.
June 24, 1983.
John F. Cordes, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Leonard Schaitman, Atty. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., were on the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, for appellee.[229 U.S.App.D.C. 149] On Petition for Rehearing
Before WRIGHT, EDWARDS and BORK, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal was decided on January 4, 1983 and reported at 697 F.2d 1095. The CIA has submitted a petition for rehearing, requesting reconsideration of the rulings set forth in Parts III and IV of our opinion, 697 F.2d at 1105-12, 1112-14. We are persuaded by the agency's argument that it has not acted in "bad faith" in processing McGehee's request for documents. Accordingly, we hereby grant the petition for rehearing and vacate Part IV of the opinion. Finding no reason any longer to doubt the credibility of the agency's affidavits, we approve the District Court's determination that the CIA adequately demonstrated that exemptions 1 and 3 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(1), (3) (1976), entitle it to withhold, in whole or in part, 44 documents responsive to McGehee's claim, and we affirm the court's grant of summary judgment to the agency insofar as it pertains to those documents. All other aspects of our original opinion are reaffirmed.
So ordered.
Free-lance journalist brought action to compel Central Intelligence Agency to respond to his request for records pertaining to "People's Temple" in Guyana. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Oliver Gasch, Senior District Judge, 533 F.Supp. 861, granted summary judgment to the CIA, as well as partial dismissal, and the journalist appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, 697 F.2d 1095. On petition by the CIA for rehearing, the Court of Appeals held that the record established that the CIA had not acted in bad faith in processing request for disclosure and also sustained determination by District Court that agency was entitled to withhold certain documents under FOIA exemptions for information which if disclosed would result in revelation of identities of "intelligence sources."
Petition for rehearing granted; portion of opinion vacated; original opinion reaffirmed in part.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.