Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1958). · Go Syfert
Search
Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
124 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 34 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Marion E. Pitch v. United States (ca11, 2020-03-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marion E. Pitch v. United States
11th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
Id. (“[A] judicial proceeding . . . includes any proceeding determinable by a court.” (quoting Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials
D.D.C. · 2019 · confidence medium
Courts, for instance, have determined that attorney disciplinary proceedings are “judicial proceedings” because such a proceeding is “designed in the public interest to preserve the good name and uprightness of the bar, made up, as it is, of attorneys who are public officers.” Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958); see also, e.g., In re J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stuart McKeever v. William Barr
D.C. Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
The reasoning of the district court is itself ambiguous; its holding that “[p]rinciples of grand jury secrecy do not bar this disclosure” is 10 based in part upon various policy considerations; in part upon the view that grand jury matters may lawfully be made available to the House of Representatives as “a body that in this setting acts simply as another grand jury”; and in part upon the view that it “seems incredible that grand jury matters should lawfully be available to disbarment committees and police disciplinary investigations and yet be unavailable to the House of Representat…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stuart McKeever v. William Barr
D.C. Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
The reasoning of the district court is itself ambiguous; its holding that “[p]rinciples of grand jury secrecy do not bar this disclosure” is 10 based in part upon various policy considerations; in part upon the view that grand jury matters may lawfully be made available to the House of Representatives as “a body that in this setting acts simply as another grand jury”; and in part upon the view that it “seems incredible that grand jury matters should lawfully be available to disbarment committees and police disciplinary investigations and yet be unavailable to the House of Representat…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Robertson (2×)
D.C. · 1992 · confidence medium
In the words of Judge Learned Hand, a disciplinary proceeding is one "designed in the public interest to preserve the good name and the uprightness of the bar, made up, as it is, of attorneys who are public officers." Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir.1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Grand Jury 89
6th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
We must therefore consider the "knotty question of what, if any, sorts of proceedings other than garden-variety civil actions or criminal prosecutions might qualify as judicial proceedings under (C)(i)." Baggot, 463 U.S. at 479, n. 2 , 103 S.Ct. at 3166, n. 2 (citations omitted). 10 The most commonly relied upon definition of a (C)(i) "judicial proceeding" is contained in Judge Learned Hand's opinion in Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir.1958).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. United States
6th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
The most commonly relied upon definition of a (C)(i) “judicial proceeding” is contained in Judge Learned Hand’s opinion in Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir.1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re SEALED MOTION
D.C. Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 (D.C.Cir.1974) (disclosure of grand jury material to House Committee considering impeachment); In re Special February 1977 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894 (7th Cir.1973) (disclosure in connection with police disciplinary investigation); Gibson v. United States, 403 F.2d 166 (D.C.Cir.1968) (state criminal proceedings); United States v. Shillitani, 345 F.2d 290, 293 (2d Cir.1965), vacated on other grounds, 384 U.S. 364 , 86 S.Ct. 1531 , 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966) (parole hearing); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir.1958) (disbarment proceeding…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re December 1988 Term Grand Jury Investigation (2×)
W.D.N.C. · 1989 · confidence medium
Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir.1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Susan Barker. Thomas E. Wolf v. Oregon State Bar
9th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court in Baggot refused to address "the knotty question of what, if any, sorts of proceedings other than garden-variety civil actions or criminal prosecutions might qualify as judicial proceedings under (C)(i).” 103 S.Ct. at 3166 n. 2 (citing e.g., Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir.1958)). 3 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Petition to Inspect and Copy Grand Jury Materials. Appeal of Honorable Alcee L. Hastings
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Actions by a circuit council or the Judicial Conference do not, therefore, exactly fit within Judge Learned Hand’s widely quoted definition of a “judicial proceeding” — that it “includes any proceeding determinable by a court____” Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir.1958).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Baggot (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
SCOTUS · 1983 · confidence medium
Ray McDermott & Co., 622 F. 2d 166, 170-171 (CA5 1980); In re Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F. 2d 894, 897 (CA7 1973); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F. 2d 118, 120 (CA2 1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Judge Elmo B. Hunter's Special Grand Jury Empaneled September 28, 1978 (2×)
8th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
But see Bradley v. Fairfax, 634 F.2d 1126, 1128-31 (8th Cir. 1980); In re Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 1973); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958); United States v. Sobotka, 623 F.2d 764, 766 (2d Cir. 1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re April 1977 Grand Jury Proceedings
E.D. Mich. · 1981 · confidence medium
See Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 1973); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958); United States v. Salanitro, 437 F.Supp. 240, 243 (D.Neb.1977), aff’d sub nom In the Matter of Disclosure of Testimony Before the Grand Jury, 580 F.2d 281, 286 (8th Cir. 1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Harvey Bradley, Jr. A/K/A Junior Bradley v. Emmett Fairfax, U.S. Marshal, Richard T. Mulcrone, U.S. Parole Commissioner
8th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
In the Matter of Disclosure of Testimony Before the Grand Jury, 580 F.2d 281, 285 (8th Cir. 1978) (approving release of materials to City of Omaha, the Council for Discipline of the Nebraska State Bar Association, and Nebraska Commission on Judicial Qualifications), citing Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958) (transcript of grand jury testimony turned over to grievance committee of New York Bar Association); cf. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 309 F.2d 440, 443-44 (3d Cir. 1962) (disclosure not allowed to Federal Trade Commission investigation where a judicial proceeding may not n…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ariel Henry Tager (2×)
10th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Although a grand jury proceeding may not itself be 'determinable by a court,' Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 1973), quoting Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958), it is nevertheless preliminary to such proceedings.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re June 20, 1977 Concurrent Grand Jury Investigation, J. Ray McDermott & Company, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
FERC argues that disclosure for its administrative proceedings, which are subject to judicial review, is disclosure “preliminarily or in connection with a judicial proceeding." According to Judge Learned Hand the term “judicial proceeding” in Rule 6(e) includes any proceeding determinable by a court, having for its object the compliance of any person, subject to judicial control, with standards imposed upon his conduct in the public interest, even though such compliance is enforced without the procedure applicable to the punishment of crime, Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. …
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Grand Jury Matter
E.D. Pa. · 1980 · confidence medium
The closest definition I believe that we have from an authoritative source is the definition given by Judge Learned Hand in Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2nd Cir.), and this was in 1958.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States of America and Federal Maritime Commission v. Philip E. Bates, (Two Cases). United States of America and Federal Maritime Commission v. Atlantic Container Line, Ltd., (Two Cases)
D.C. Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
See, e. g., In re Disclosure of Testimony Before Grand Jury, 580 F.2d 281, 285-286 (8th Cir. 1978) ("the procedures for prosecuting violators of criminal laws, disciplining lawyers and removing judges were designed to culminate in a judicial proceeding and, therefore, all the requests of the applicants were 'preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding' "); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958). 7 Investigations by Internal Revenue agents working with United States attorneys on criminal cases are also clearly preliminary to judicial proceedings.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Young
E.D. Tex. · 1980 · confidence medium
See Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894 (7th Cir. 1973); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958); United States v. Salanitro, 437 F.Supp. 240 (D.Neb.1977), aff’d sub nom., In the Matter of Disclosure of Testimony Before the Grand Jury, 580 F.2d 281 (8th Cir. 1978); In re Report and Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 370 F.Supp. 1219 (D.D.C.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jacob S. Sobotka
2d Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
This has been the law of this circuit since Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 119-20 (2d Cir. 1958), and has been followed in other circuits, see e. g., In the Matter of Disclosure of Testimony Before the Grand Jury, 580 F.2d 281, 285-86 (8th Cir. 1978); In re Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894, 896-97 (7th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bates
D.C. Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
See, e. g., In re Disclosure of Testimony Before Grand Jury, 580 F.2d 281, 285-286 (8th Cir. 1978) (“the procedures for prosecuting violators of criminal laws, disciplining lawyers and removing judges were designed to culminate in a judicial proceeding and, therefore, all the requests of the applicants were ‘preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding’ ”); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Proceedings Before the Federal Grand Jury (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D. Nev. · 1980 · confidence medium
The district court, sitting en banc, relied on the definition of a “judicial proceeding” enunciated by Judge Learned Hand: “. . . the term ‘judicial proceeding’ includes any proceeding determinable by a court, having for its object the compliance of any person, subject to judicial control, with standards imposed upon his conduct in the public interest, even though such compliance is enforced without the procedure applicable to the punishment of crime.” Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Tager (2×)
D. Kan. · 1979 · confidence medium
Cir. 1968) (state criminal proceedings); United States v. Shillitani, 345 F.2d 290, 293 (2d Cir. 1965), vacated on other grounds, 384 U.S. 364 , 86 S.Ct. 1531 , 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966) (parole hearing); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958) (disbarment proceedings); United States v. Salanitro, 437 F.Supp. 240 (D.Neb.1977) (state disbarment proceedings and state judge impeachment proceedings); In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F.Supp. 1299 (M.D.Fla.1977) (House Committee investigating need for legislation); In re Report and Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 37…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bobbie Stanford, Louis Watson, Janice Davis, Estella Patterson, Doris Beverly, Dorothy Fife, Richard O'rourke, and Dorothy Jones
7th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Although a grand jury proceeding may not itself be “determinable by a court,” Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 1973), quoting Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118,120 (2d Cir. 1958), it is nevertheless preliminary to such proceedings.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of Disclosure of Testimony Before the Grand Jury. Appeal of Anthony S. Troia
8th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958) (transcript of testimony before grand jury turned over to Grievance Committee of New York City Bar Association).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Salanitro
D. Neb. · 1977 · confidence medium
Judge Learned Hand’s definition of “judicial proceeding,” stated in Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (C.A. 2nd Cir. 1958), is apropos: “. . .
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Grand Jury Investigation
S.D.N.Y. · 1976 · confidence medium
Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Grand Jury Transcripts
S.D. Ohio · 1970 · confidence medium
Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958).
discussed Cited "see" In Re United States for an Order Pursuant to Provisions of Rule 6(E)
W.D. Pa. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1958), and since the Internal Revenue Service has the authority to bring suit to enforce a civil assessment of tax liability the proposed tax audit in the case sub judice could qualify.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." ALEX NUNES v. VALERIE HERSCHMAN, etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Other jurisdictions have defined “judicial proceedings” as “proceedings before a court or a judge.” Lybrand v. State Co., 184 S.E. 580, 583 (S.C. 1936); see also Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958) (stating that “judicial proceeding” “includes any proceeding determinable by a court”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Kearney v. TODD L. SMITH, PA
S.D.N.Y. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330 , 292 N.Y.S.2d 667 , 239 N.E.2d 540 (1968); see also Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir.1958).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Anonymous v. Association of the Bar
2d Cir. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1958) (holding the order of a district court judge, which authorized the transmittal of federal grand jury minutes to the Grievance Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, to be within Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), which pro vides for disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury when so ordered by a court “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Anonymous v. The Association Of The Bar Of The City Of New York
2d Cir. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1958) (holding the order of a district court judge, which authorized the transmittal of federal grand jury minutes to the Grievance Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, to be within Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), which provides for disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury when so ordered by a court "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding."). 25 The fact that the Appellate Division may disregard the recommendations of the Committee emphasizes the role of that bench in determining the continuing q…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Doe, an Attorney
v.
Samuel L. Rosenberry, David L. Benetar, Samuel M. Chapin, Horace S. Manges, Alexander Caldwell Neave, Stuart N. Scott, W. Mason Smith, Jr., David Teitelbaum, Stephen P. Duggan, Jr., Joseph E. Dyer, John A. Gifford, James H. Halpin, Roger Bryant Hunting, Murray Foster Johnson, Carlyle E. Maw, F. W. H. Adams, Ernest J. Ellenwood, John D. Garrison, Edgar M. Souza and Harris B. Steinberg
24875_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 8, 1958.
255 F.2d 118
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

255 F.2d 118

John DOE, an Attorney, Appellant,
v.
Samuel L. ROSENBERRY, David L. Benetar, Samuel M. Chapin, Horace S. Manges, Alexander Caldwell Neave, Stuart N. Scott, W. Mason Smith, Jr., David Teitelbaum, Stephen P. Duggan, Jr., Joseph E. Dyer, John A. Gifford, James H. Halpin, Roger Bryant Hunting, Murray Foster Johnson, Carlyle E. Maw, F. W. H. Adams, Ernest J. Ellenwood, John D. Garrison, Edgar M. Souza and Harris B. Steinberg, Appellees.

No. 244.

Docket 24875.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 11, 1958.

Decided May 8, 1958.

Boris Kostelanetz, Corcoran, Kostelanetz & Gladstone, Arthur Karger, Jules Ritholz, of counsel, for appellant.

Frederick H. Block, Frank H. Gordon, of counsel, for appellees.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, HAND, Circuit Judge, and BRENNAN, District Judge.

HAND, Circuit Judge.

[*~118]1

This appeal is from an order of Judge Dawson, denying a motion by the plaintiff that the Grievance Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York be directed to return to the grand jury of the Southern District of New York the transcript of the testimony of all witnesses taken before that body and to surrender all copies of that testimony. The motion also asked that the Grievance Committee be forbidden to use the testimony or any information derived from it and that the Committee be stayed from any investigation "related to the use of aforesaid grand jury minutes."

2

The facts were as follows. The plaintiff is a member of the New York Bar against whom the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York preferred "charges of corruption in government and * * * criminal activity" as "a former group chief in the [Intelligence Unit of the] Internal Revenue Service." The grand jury failed to indict; but having finished its investigation on September 21, 1955, it "unanimously voted that the activities of the appellant be referred to the Grievance Committee * * * by the United States Attorney." The United States Attorney thereupon presented the issue to the Committee, whose own attorney filed with it a charge against the plaintiff, and thereafter — with the support of the United States Attorney — obtained from Judge Dawson an order making available to the Committee the transcripts of minutes of the grand jury testimony. The Committee began a hearing under § 90(6) of the New York Judiciary Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 30, but before its completion the plaintiff moved before Judge Dawson that the transcripts should be returned and for other incidental relief. It is from an order denying all relief that the plaintiff has appealed. We are told, although this does not appear in the record, that the Committee has proceeded with the hearing and reported to the Appellate Division unfavorably to the plaintiff; and that that court has appointed a referee to hear the evidence presented by the Committee's attorney; also that the progress of that proceeding has been suspended by the consent of both parties, pending the decision of this appeal. The plaintiff's position is that Judge Dawson's order was a violation of his privilege that all testimony taken before the grand jury should not be disclosed.

3

We find it unnecessary to consider whether the common law would have authorized the order, because for us Rule 6(e) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. is the measure of the plaintiff's privilege. It first forbids any "disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury" to anyone except "attorneys for the government" with exceptions not here relevant, and then declares that "otherwise a juror, attorney, interpreter a stenographer, may disclose matters occurring before a grand jury only when so directed by the court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." The position of the Committee is that the disclosure to them of the testimony taken before the grand jury was preliminary to a judicial proceeding: that is, to a proceeding upon the complaint of the Committee to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court involving disciplinary sanctions against the plaintiff. This depends, first, upon whether the hearing by the Grievance Committee was "preliminary" to any charge of professional misconduct that it might make to the Appellate Division; and, second, whether any proceeding before that court upon such a charge was "a judicial proceeding" within the meaning of the rule.

[*~119]4

The answer to the first question admits of no doubt. Section 90(7) of the New York Judiciary Law provides that in a county like that of New York the "presiding justice may * * * appoint an attorney and counsellor-at-law, designated by a duly incorporated bar association * * * to prosecute any such proceeding"; and the Appellate Division of the First Department (Matter of Branch, 178 App.Div. 585, 588, 165 N.Y.S. 688, 690) has declared that it "has long been the practice of this court to refer to said committee" (the Grievance Committee of the City Bar Association), "for investigation, in the first instance, complaints against members of the bar to see whether such complaints furnish sufficient ground for the submission of formal charges. Its work has been of the most important character and has been of great assistance to the court. When so proceeding, as the learned official referee has well said, its acts are quasi judicial; for on its conclusions formal charges are presented to the court." See also Matter of Wyte, 231 App.Div. 539, 547, 248 N.Y. S. 26.

5

The second question is whether a proceeding before the Appellate Division to discipline an attorney of the state court is within the term, "judicial proceeding," of Rule 6(e). It is true that it is not a criminal proceeding, Matter of Randel, 158 N.Y. 216, 219, 52 N.E. 1106; Matter of Popper, 193 App.Div. 505, 510, 184 N.Y.S. 406. On the other hand, it is a proceeding designed in the public interest to preserve the good name and the uprightness of the bar, made up, as it is, of attorneys who are public officers. We cannot agree that the Rule should be limited to criminal proceedings; on the contrary we hold that, prima facie, the term "judicial proceeding" includes any proceeding determinable by a court, having for its object the compliance of any person, subject to judicial control, with standards imposed upon his conduct in the public interest, even though such compliance is enforced without the procedure applicable to the punishment of crime. An interpretation that should not go at least so far, would not only be in the teeth of the language employed, but would defeat any rational purpose that can be imputed to the Rule. It is scarcely necessary to add that the situation is completely unlike the "presentment" of a grand jury such as was the subject of Judge Weinfeld's decision in Application of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, D.C., 111 F.Supp. 858.

6

We wish to guard against the assumption that we are suggesting that the District Court would have in any event jurisdiction over the dispute to be decided by the proceeding pending before the Appellate Division or its referee, or that we might interfere with its or his possession of minutes of the testimony in question. We are assuming that these remain in the possession of the Grievance Committee. It is hardly necessary to add that we make not the remotest suggestion as to how they shall be used, or what should be regarded as their evidential competence in the proceeding to discipline the plaintiff. We merely refuse to interfere with the possession of the Grievance Committee.

[*~120]7

Order affirmed.