green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.5 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Anderson v. Brokers, Inc. (In Re Brokers, Inc.)
of course, the business judgment rule is inapplicable ... when the directors' judgment ... is the product of self-dealing....
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury 89-2
See United States v. (Under Seal), 714 F.2d 347, 350 (4th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 978 , 104 S.Ct. 1019 , 78 L.Ed.2d 354 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Application of Larry A. Wood to Appear Before the Grand Jury (Misc. 85-L-02). Appeal of United States of America
(2×)
This court correctly identifies the test for determining when supervisory power may be properly exercised: “given the constitutionally-based independence of each of the three actors — court, prosecutor and grand jury — * * * a court may not exercise its ‘supervisory power’ in a way which encroaches on the prerogatives of the other two unless there is a clear basis in fact and law for doing so.” Id. (footnote omitted); see United States v. (Under Seal), 714 F.2d 347, 350 (4th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 978 , 104 S.Ct. 1019 , 78 L.Ed.2d 354 (1983) (court must have compelling re…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Diaz v. Romer
Compare Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 , 111 S.Ct. 630 , 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991) with Battle v. Anderson, 708 F.2d 1523 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1014 , 104 S.Ct. 1019 , 79 L.Ed.2d 248 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Sam Rabin, Witness-Appellee v. United States of America, Movant-Appellant
(2×)
Bryson, Grand Jury Law and Practice Sec. 10.15, at 57 n. 19 (1986); see also United States v. (Under Seal) (In re Antitrust Grand Jury Investigation), 714 F.2d 347, 351 (4th Cir.) (existence of alternative remedy important in determining whether to quash an indictment), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 978 , 104 S.Ct. 1019 , 78 L.Ed.2d 354 (1983) Of course, a witness may move to quash a subpoena on the ground that the Government is attempting to harass or embarrass him.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
See also Weiss v. Temporary Investment Fund, Inc., 516 F.Supp. 665 , 667 n. 4 (D.Del.1981) (citing Shlensky, supra), aff'd, 692 F.2d 928 (3d Cir.1982), vacated on other grounds, 465 U.S. 1001 , 104 S.Ct. 989 , 79 L.Ed.2d 224 (1984); Recchion v. Westinghouse Electrical Corp., 606 F.Supp. 889, 896 (W.D.Pa.1985) (same). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John David Moss and Corvette Center, Inc.
To protect the investigative function of the grand jury, we have recognized that “courts should not intervene in the grand jury process absent [a] compelling reason.” *332 In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 581 F.2d 1103, 1108 (4th Cir.1978) cert. denied, 440 U.S. 971 , 99 S.Ct. 1533 , 59 L.Ed.2d 787 (1979); see also United States v. (Under Seal), 714 F.2d 347, 350 (4th Cir.), cert. dismissed, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 1019 , 78 L.Ed.2d 354 (1983).
Ellsworth Freight Lines, Inc.
v.
State Tax Commission of Missouri
v.
State Tax Commission of Missouri
No. 83-593.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 23, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: M.D. North Carolina (1)
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Mo. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.