green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
3.9 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case ·
“Rule 17(c) requires a showing that the materials sought are currently admissible in evidence; it cannot be used as a device to gain understanding or explanation.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Cuthbertson //”
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Cherry
rule 17(c) requires a showing that the materials sought are currently admissible in evidence; it cannot be used as a device to gain understanding or explanation.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Scarfo
See United States v. Cuthbertson, 651 F.2d 189 (3d Cir.) (inadmissible hearsay materials not retrievable under Rule 17(c) subpoena), ce rt. denied, 454 U.S. 1056 , 102 S.Ct. 604 , 70 L.Ed.2d 594 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Samuel Hyman
(2×)
See United States v. Picketts, 655 F.2d 837, 842 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1056 , 102 S.Ct. 602 , 70 L.Ed.2d 592 (1981); United States v. Ming, 466 F.2d 1000, 1007 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 915 , 93 S.Ct. 235 , 34 L.Ed.2d 176 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Leleonia Evonne Caldwell v. Herbert Line, Presiding Judge of Dallas County Annex Court
See Henson v. Estelle, 641 F.2d 250 , 252 n.1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1056 , 102 S.Ct. 603 , 70 L.Ed.2d 593 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harrelson v. United States
See, e.g., In re Globe Newspaper Company, 920 F.2d 88, 91 (1st Cir.1990), (declining to determine whether there is a right to intervene possessed by a newspaper seeking to examine the names and addresses of jurors who had participated in a just-completed criminal trial but reviewing that same issue in the context of a mandamus action). 14 .See, e.g., United States v. Cuthbertson, 651 F.2d 189, 193 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1056 , 102 S.Ct. 604 , 70 L.Ed.2d 594 (1981), (holding the persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State Ex Rel. Charleston Mail Ass'n v. Ranson
(2×)
See also United States v. Cuthbertson (Cuthbertson II), 651 F.2d 189, 198 (3d Cir.) (Seitz, C.J., concurring) (advocating in camera review of allegedly privileged materials requested by subpoena in order to "obtain an impartial determination of whether the documents contain material that is producible under the subpoena and, in the case of a qualified privilege, whether such material is subject to disclosure under an appropriate balancing test"), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1056 , 102 S.Ct. 604 , 70 L.Ed.2d 594 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Richard A. Nazzaro
Compare, e.g., United States v. Picketts, 655 F.2d 837, 841 (7th Cir.) (grand jury testimony may be material even where limitation period has expired as to events about which defendant testified), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1056 , 102 S.Ct. 602 , 70 L.Ed.2d 592 (1981); United States v. Reed, *1166 647 F.2d 849, 853 (8th Cir.1981) (similar); United States v. Cohn, 452 F.2d 881, 883 (2d Cir.1971) (similar), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 975 , 92 S.Ct. 1196 , 31 L.Ed.2d 249 (1972).
Picketts
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 81-709.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 16, 1981.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1) · E.D. Virginia (1)
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.