Legal Opinion
Aftergood v. National Reconnaissance Office
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided July 24, 2006No. Civil Action 05-1307(RBW)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WALTON, District Judge.
The plaintiff, Steven Aftergood, brings this action alleging that the defendant, the National Reconnaissance Office (“NRO”), has impermissibly withheld a document he requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2000). Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 1. Currently before the Court are the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (“PL’s Mot.”) and the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (“Def.’s Mot.”). 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denies the defendant’s…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Cent. Intelligence AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Institute for Policy Studies v. United States Central Intelligence AgencyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Central Intelligence AgencyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2018