green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
8.7 score
“in the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, such parallel proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
cited
Cited "but see"
United States v. Richard M. Penta
But cf. United States v. Sikora, 635 F.2d 1175, 1175-76 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 530 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980) (more complex approach).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Certain Real Property & Premises Known as 1344 Ridge Road
But see United States v. U.S. Currency, 626 F.2d 11, 14-15 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980) (citing cases for proposition that it is unconstitutional to require a party to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another); Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084, 1087-88 (5th Cir.1979) (same); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gilbert, 79 F.R.D. 683, 685 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (unconstitutional to condition the right to remain silent upon the imposition of coercive sanctions). 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle
a stay of a civil case is most appropriate where a party to the civil case has already been indicted for the same conduct.. ..
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Medic House, Inc.
in the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, such parallel proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc.
a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings, postpone civil discovery, or impose protective orders and conditions ...
cited
Cited "see"
in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle
See id. ("A stay of a civil case is most appropriate where a party to the civil case has already been indicted for the same conduct.... j .
cited
Cited "see"
in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle
See id. ("A stay of a civil case is most appropriate where a party to the civil case has already been indicted for the same conduct.... j .
discussed
Cited "see"
Alcala v. Texas Webb County
See SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1376 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980); see also Trustees of Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat’l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 1134, 1138 (S.D.N.Y.1995); see also Heller Healthcare Fin., Inc. v. Boyes, 2002 WL 1558337 , at *3 (N.D.Tex.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Fresenius Medical Care North America
See SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1376 (D.C.Cir.1980) (explaining how the privilege against self-incrimination is implicated in parallel civil and criminal proceedings), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Blackwell
Rule 6(e) applies “not only to information drawn from transcripts of grand jury proceedings, but also to anything which may reveal what occurred before the grand jury.” In re Grand Jury Matter, 682 F.2d 61, 63 (3d Cir.1982); see Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v. National Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 869 (D.C.Cir.1981) (scope of grand jury secrecy encompasses anything which would reveal “the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of the testimony, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or question of the jurors, and the like”) (quoting SE…
discussed
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Incendy
See S.E.C. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980) (trial courts have discretion to stay civil proceedings because of parallel criminal proceeding).
cited
Cited "see"
United Technologies Corp. v. Dean
See SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1375 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980); Brock v. Tolkow, 109 F.R.D. 116, 119 (E.D.N.Y.1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Giampa
This general rule of grand jury secrecy is codified in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 46 Rule 6(e) applies “not only to information drawn from transcripts of grand jury proceedings, but also to anything which may reveal what occurred before the grand jury.” In re Grand Jury Matter, 682 F.2d 61, 63 (3d Cir.1982); see Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v. National Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 869 (D.C.Cir.1981) (scope of grand jury secrecy encompasses anything which would reveal “the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony, the strategy …
discussed
Cited "see"
McDonnell v. United States
See Fund for Constitutional Gov’t, 656 F.2d at 869 (names and identities of witnesses, substance of testimony, and documents considered by grand jury fall within broad reach of grand jury secrecy) (citing SEC v. Dresser Indus. 628 F.2d 1368 , 1382 (en banc cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980)).
cited
Cited "see"
Manna v. United States Department of Justice
See SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Twenty First Century Corp. v. LaBianca
See Securities Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980) (If “[t]he noncriminal proceeding ... might undermine the party’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, expand rights of criminal discovery beyond the limits of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b) ... [and] delay of the noncriminal proceeding would not seriously injure the public interest, a court may be justified in deferring it.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Curley v. United States
See Foxman v. Renison, 625 F.2d 429, 432 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 530 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980), reh. den. 449 U.S. 1119 , 101 S.Ct. 932 , 66 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981); Kopunek v. Director of Internal Revenue, 528 F.Supp. 134, 137 (S.D.N.Y.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eisenberg
Rule 6(e) applies “not only to information drawn from transcripts of grand jury proceedings, but also to anything which may reveal what occurred before the grand jury.” In re Grand Jury Matter, 682 F.2d 61, 63 (3d Cir.1982); see Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v. National Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 869 (D.C.Cir.1981) (scope of grand jury secrecy encompasses anything which would reveal “the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of the jurors, and the like.”) (quoting SEC …
cited
Cited "see"
In re Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. Securities Litigation
See S.E.C. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1376 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Search Warrant for Northwest Enviroservices, Inc.
See Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C.Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980) where the Court stated that while disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury are prohibited, this does not require “that a veil of secrecy be drawn over all matters occurring in the world that happen to be investigated by a Grand Jury.” Moreover, even if the information is or may later be presented to a grand jury, it is not transformed into grand jury material.
discussed
Cited "see"
ca3 1987
See United States v. U.S. Currency, 626 F.2d 11 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980). 26 In United States v. Cauble, 706 F.2d 1322 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1005 , 104 S.Ct. 996 , 79 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984), the court of appeals suggested that the jury should not consider the forfeiture issues until it has returned guilty verdicts.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sandini
See United States v. U.S. Currency, 626 F.2d 11 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Harker
Accord, S.E.C. v. Dresser Industries, 628 F.2d 1368 , 1388 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980); United States v. Exxon Corp., 628 F.2d 70 , 77 n. 7 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 964 , 100 S.Ct. 2940 , 64 L.Ed.2d 823 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mid-America's Process Service and Lynn Whitefield v. Honorable James O. Ellison, Terry Rhine v. Honorable James O. Ellison
See SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1375-76 (D.C.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980); Gordon v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 427 F.2d 578, 580 (D.C.Cir.1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cook ex rel. Black Employees of the Library of Congress v. Boorstin
See SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1390 (D.C.Cir.) (“[T]he burden of proof rests on those resisting intervention.”), cer t. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980); Central States, S.E. & S.W.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cook v. Boorstin
See SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1390 (D.C.Cir.) ("[T]he burden of proof rests on those resisting intervention."), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980); Central States, S.E. & S.W.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jackson
(2×)
See U.S. v SIKORA, 635 F. 2d 1175 [6th Cir.] (1980), statements made immediately after DEA Agent informed defendant that governor had enough evidence to convict not involuntary, cert. denied, 449 US 993 (1980), and U.S. v HART, 619 F. 2d 325 (4th Circuit, 1980), falsely informing suspect that cooperation ‘could have a bearing on bond reduction did not render resulting statement involuntary.’ Defendant objects to the finding that the defendant was “street-wise,” arguing that there is no evidence to support such a finding.
discussed
Cited "see"
Heddan v. Dirkswager
(2×)
See United States v. U.S. Currency, 626 F.2d 11 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Dale v. Bartels
See Foxman v. Renison, 625 F.2d 429 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 530 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 and cases therein cited.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cullor
See State v. Olsen, 293 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Iowa), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 530 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980); 2 W.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Doody
See, e.g., SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1375 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980); Downe, 1993 WL 22126 , at *12-13. 3 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fidelity Funding of California v. Reinhold
See also Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375-76 (D.C.Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980) (“Other than where there is specific evidence of agency bad faith or malicious governmental tactics, the strongest case for deferring civil proceedings is where a party under indictment for a serious offense is required to defend a civil or administrative action involving the same matter.”) This case, however, is different from the cases that follow the Golden Quality criteria and revolve around the timing of the indictment becau…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Flanders
State v. Cullor, 315 N.W.2d 808, 811 (Iowa 1982); see also State v. Olsen, 293 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Iowa 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 530 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ronald P. Markwood
The Court held that, under the facts, this claim did not amount to an extraordinary circumstance requiring discovery. 647 F.2d at 193-94 ; see also United States v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., Inc., 831 F.2d 1142, 1146 (D.C.Cir.1987) (reasoning that “ ‘discovery may be available in some subpoena enforcement proceedings where the circumstances indicate that further information is necessary for the courts to discharge their duty.’ ”) (quoting SEC v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1388 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Anderson
(2×)
See also United States v. Sikora, 635 F.2d 1175, 1175-76 (6th Cir.) (holding no violation of Rule 11 when defendant has not tendered plea, proposal for plea, or proposal to negotiate), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 530 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Church of Scientology of Texas v. Internal Revenue Service
Automatically sealing all that a grand jury sees or hears would enable the government to shield any information from public view indefinitely by the simple expedient of presenting it to the grand jury. (footnotes and citations omitted) (emphasis in original); See also, Fund for Constitutional Government 656 F.2d at 869 , (quoting, SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 202 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 359 , 628 F.2d 1368 , 1382 (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980).) (The “scope of the secrecy is necessarily broad,” encompassing testimony before the grand jury and �…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nowaczyk v. Matingas
See also S.E.C. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1376 (D.C.Cir.1980) (where no indictment has issued, the purpose of staying civil proceedings during pending criminal proceedings is “a far weaker one”) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980). 4.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Federal Trade Commission v. Invention Submission Corporation
The moving party must make an “adequate showing that the agency is acting in bad faith or for an improper purpose, such as harassment.” Aero Mayflower, 831 F.2d at 1145 ; see also SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1388 (D.C.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cannistraro
“Rule 6(e) applies not only to information drawn from transcripts of grand jury proceedings, but also to anything which may reveal what occurred before the grand jury.” In re Grand Jury Matter, 682 F.2d *50 61, 63 (3d Cir.1982); see also Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v. National Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 869 (D.C.Cir.1981) (The scope of grand jury secrecy encompasses anything “which would reveal ‘the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the. deliberations or questions of the jurors, and the like.�…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Parcels of Land, Etc., Appeal of Lionel Laliberte
See also United States v. United States Currency, 626 F.2d 11, 15-18 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980); Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084, 1085-89 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Premises & Real Property at 297 Hawley Street
The Supreme Court has extended the Fifth Amendment privilege to forfeiture proceedings similar to those instituted under § 881 which, though perhaps civil in form, are, in effect, quasi-criminal in nature because they impose sanctions “only upon those who are significantly involved in a criminal enterprise,” United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 721-22 , 91 S.Ct. 1041, 1044-45 , 28 L.Ed.2d 434 (1971); Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886); see also United States v. U.S. Currency, 626 F.2d 11, 15 (6th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William H. Zuhone, Jr. And Audra M. Zuhone v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See also Foxman v. Renison, 625 F.2d 429, 431-32 (2d Cir.1980), certiorari denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 530 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 , where violation by the IRS of its own post-audit review procedures did not violate the due process clause.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Flank v. Sellers
Compare Foxman v. Renison, 625 F.2d 429, 431-32 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 530 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980) (no constitutional rights infringed where IRS review procedures available, even if agent violated regulations in refusing to consider evidence substantiating claimed deductions) and Cameron v. IRS, 773 F.2d 126 (7th Cir.1985) (no damage remedy where plaintiff alleges “only that internal revenue agents acted in a heavy-handed, insensitive, and careless fashion in processing the taxpay *955 er’s tax returns”) and Baddour, Inc. v. United States, 802 F.2d 801, 806-08 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gardiner v. District of Columbia
See, e.g., United States v. U.S. Currency, 626 F.2d 11, 16-17 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980) (possibility of stay of forfeiture proceedings until completion of criminal prosecution or running of statute of limitations). .The order striking appellant’s answer also is infirm because it was entered prematurely.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Independent Petrochemical Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Cir.1977); see also Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1390 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hearne v. United States
See also Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, 202 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 351-353 , 628 F.2d 1368, 1374-1376 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.
See also SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1390 (D.C.Cir.) (corporate officer should have been allowed to intervene in SEC action against corporation, but with hindsight it is clear his interests were adequately represented), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.
See also SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1390 (D.C.Cir.) (corporate officer should have been allowed to intervene in SEC action against corporation, but with hindsight it is clear his interests were adequately represented), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980) 15 The Supreme Court had previously dealt with intervention in a government enforcement action in Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129 , 87 S.Ct. 932 , 17 L.Ed.2d 814 (1967), which related both to the unamended and the amended Rule 24.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Teresa G. Hoover v. Dewey W. Knight, Jr., Individually, and as Interim County Manager of Dade County, Florida
See also, S.E.C. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. den. 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Grand Jury Matter. Appeal of Nicholas Catania
See also, SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 , 1382 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 , 101 S.Ct. 529 , 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980).
Magnelli
v.
Pennsylvania
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 80-351.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 17, 1980.
Published
Pa. Commw. Ct. Certiorari denied.