Sears, Roebuck and Co., Charles W. Dahm, O. P., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jack Eckerd

600 F.2d 1237, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13609, 26 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 566
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedJune 28, 1979
Docket77-1417
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 600 F.2d 1237 (Sears, Roebuck and Co., Charles W. Dahm, O. P., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jack Eckerd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sears, Roebuck and Co., Charles W. Dahm, O. P., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jack Eckerd, 600 F.2d 1237, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13609, 26 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 566 (7th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

ORDER

On April 23, 1979, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded this case for us to reconsider in the light of its opinion in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208. 1 In our opinion herein, we had held inter alia, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s subsequent Chrysler Corp. opinion, that Sears’ remedy to prevent disclosure of its documents to the intervenor was to seek judicial review of the federal defendants’ disclosure decision under the Administrative Procedure Act. See 575 F.2d 1197 at 1202.

Upon consideration of the federal defendants’ and Sears’ position papers, 2 this case is hereby remanded to the district court with directions to order the Department of Labor to make a new administrative determination in the light of the Chrysler Corp. opinion. The Department should determine initially whether the information is currently outside the exceptions in the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). If not, the Department should weigh competing interests to decide whether in its discretion the information should, and legally may, be released. In doing so, the Department should also determine whether the requested data is within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1905. The district court should thereafter conduct such proceedings as may be appropriate.

1

. See — U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 1705.

2

. No position paper was filed by intervenor Charles W. Dahm. We are giving no consideration to a position paper filed by attorney Emily A. Sloane since her clients are not parties hereto within Circuit Rule 19.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
600 F.2d 1237, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13609, 26 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sears-roebuck-and-co-charles-w-dahm-o-p-ca7-1979.