green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1984 ·
…these dismissals have been based either on constitutional grounds or on the court's inherent supervisory power
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Valenti v. United States Department of Justice
The Fifth Circuit has said that a grand jury is “essentially an agency of the court, and exercises its powers under the authority and supervision of the court.” United States v. Stevens, 510 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1975); accord: United States v. Campanale, 518 F.2d 352, 366 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1050 , 96 S.Ct. 777 , 46 L.Ed.2d 638 (1976); but see United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1978) [grand jury is an independent, pre-constitutional institution which should not be captive to any of…
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Inc.
(2×)
these dismissals have been based either on constitutional grounds or on the court's inherent supervisory power
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Essex County Grand Jury Investigation into the Fire at Seton Hall University
See Murphy, supra at 409 (citing U.S. v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977); U.S. v. Stevens, 510 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir.1975), reh’g denied, 512 F.2d 1406 (5th Cir.1975)) See also (for historical background) Costello v. U.S., 350 U.S. 359, 361-62 , 76 S.Ct. 406, 407 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956); Blair v. U.S., 250 U.S. 273, 279-283 , 39 S.Ct. 468, 470-71 , 63 L.Ed. 979, 981-83 (1919); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 59 , 26 S.Ct. 370, 372-73 , 50 L.Ed. 652, 659 (1906).
discussed
Cited "see"
Newman v. Checkrite California, Inc.
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306 ,1313 n. 5 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977) (U.S. Attorney appears before the court as both an officer of the court and an attorney for his client, and in this first capacity is responsible to the court for the manner of his conduct in a case); Chilcutt v. United States, 4 F.3d 1313 , n. 36 and n. 37 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied sub. nom., Means v. Wortham, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 460 , 130 L.Ed.2d 367 (1994) (“to restrict a district court’s power to fashion an appropriate sanction, simply because the t…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Juarez
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury 89-2
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977). 8 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Shah
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312-13 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Shah
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312-13 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne
(2×)
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (9th Cir. 1977) (discussing separation of powers reasons for court’s refusal to intervene in grand jury proceedings), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 .
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×)
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Olagues v. Russoniello
See Olagues I, 770 F.2d at 799-801. “[A] court may not exercise its ‘supervisory power’ in a way which encroaches on the prerogatives of [a prosecutor] unless there is a clear basis in fact and law for doing so.” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Hispanic Coalition for Human Rights, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and San Francisco Latino Voter Registration Education Project v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California O'malley, William A., Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for Santa Clara County Underwood, Lon, Individually and in His Capacity as Registrar of Voters for Contra Costa County Smith, Arlo, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for San Francisco County
See Olagues I, 770 F.2d at 799-801. "[A] court may not exercise its 'supervisory power' in a way which encroaches on the prerogatives of [a prosecutor] unless there is a clear basis in fact and law for doing so." United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977). 86 Without doubt, district courts may, under appropriate circumstances, have power to enjoin illegal prosecutorial actions.
cited
Cited "see"
Clark v. Yosemite Community College District
See Bernasconi v. Tempe Elementary School District, 548 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 82 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
No. 85-1801
See Bernasconi v. Tempe Elementary School District, 548 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 82 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Turner
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977); United States v. Samango, 607 F.2d 877, 881 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Cedarquist, 641 F.2d 1347 , 1352 (9th Cir.1981); Anderson, 577 F.Supp. 223, 230 ; Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1351-52 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Harry E. Claiborne
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (9th Cir.1977) (discussing separation of powers reasons for court’s refusal to intervene in grand jury proceedings), ce rt. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gerald L. Rogers
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roy Moreno Ramirez, United States of America v. Robert H. Reynolds
The power, however, has been infrequently utilized, id. at 367 ; see Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. at 493-95 , 96 S.Ct. at 1651-52 (Powell, J., concurring), and a dismissal should be granted only when there is a clear basis in fact and law for doing so, see United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Smith v. Harris
See Bernasconi v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3, 548 F.2d 857, 862 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 82 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Nabil S. Al Mudarris, and Salah S. Al Mudarris
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. William E. McLaughlin
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977). *952 III.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rowena Owen Garner
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David G. Bettencourt
See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank W. Cathey
(2×)
Costello v. U. S., 350 U.S. 359 , 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1950); U. S. v. Brown, supra at 1276 ; U. S. v. Cruz, 478 F.2d 408, 410-11 (CA5), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 910 , 94 S.Ct. 259 , 38 L.Ed.2d 148 (1973); see U. S. v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1311 (CA9), cert. denied., 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977); cf. U. S. v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132, 1137 (CA2, 1972) (dismissal of indictment proper if government needlessly relied on hearsay as exercise of court’s supervisory power).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Nicolas Herrera-Figueroa
See, e.g., United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977) (noting that courts must beware of exercising their supervisory power to prescribe rules of conduct for prosecutors, because such an exercise “could readily prove subversive of the doctrine of separation of powers”). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez
See id. (the exclusionary rule "is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights ..."); Calandra, 414 U.S. at 348 , 94 S.Ct. at 620 (same); see also United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 733 , 100 S.Ct. 2439, 2445 , 65 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980) (Payner ) (rejecting proposition "that a federal court should use its supervisory power to suppress evidence tainted by gross illegalities that did not infringe the defendant's constitutional rights"). 153 In United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir.1985) (Gatto ), we recognized that "a court may not exercise any supervisory …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Hispanic Coalition for Human Rights, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and San Francisco Lation Voter Registration Education Project v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern Ca O'malley, William A., Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for Contra Costa County Underwood, Lon, Individually and in His Capacity as Registrar of Voters for Contra Costa County Smith, Arlo, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for San Francisco County
See also United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir.) ("a court may not exercise its 'supervisory power' in a way which encroaches on the prerogatives of [a prosecutor] unless there is a clear basis in fact and law for doing so," because of separation of powers constraints), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977) (Chanen). 33 The organizations alleged that the United States Attorney lacked a reasonable basis for initiating the investigations.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Olagues v. Russoniello
See also United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir.) (“a court may not exercise its ‘supervisory power’ in a way which encroaches on the prerogatives of [a prosecutor] unless there is a clear basis in fact and law for doing so,” because -of separation of powers constraints), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977) (Chanen).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mercedes Duvallon v. The State of Florida
See also Wright v. Bailey, 544 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1976) (petitioner not “in custody” where conviction for disorderly conduct resulted in a fine with no provision for incarceration), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 82 (1977); Pueschel v. Leuba, 383 F.Supp. 576 (D.Conn.1974) (imposition of $100 fine is not a sufficient restraint of liberty to satisfy the “in custody” requirement).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Meyers
See, e. g., United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977); United States v. International Paper Company, 457 F.Supp. 571 (1978); People v. Estep, 196 Colo. 340 , 583 P.2d 927 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 983 , 99 S.Ct. 1796 , 60 L.Ed.2d 245 (1979); People v. Simbolo, 188 Colo. 49 , 532 P.2d 962 (1975).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wilson
See also Wright v. Bailey, 544 F.2d 737 . 740 (4th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 82 (1976).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Donald R. English, William R. Williams, and the A. B. C. Employees Association of New Hanover County v. W. Douglas Powell, Individually and as Administrator to the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Charles S. Carter, Individually and as Assistant to the Administrator, the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, John E. Mowbray, Pender P. Durham, Eugene W. Edwards, Individually and as Members of the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, E. A. Shands & Vera Shands v. W. Douglas Powell, Individually and as Administrator to the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, the New Hanover Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and Its Individual Members: John E. Mowbray, Pender P. Durham and W. Eugene Edwards, William L. Clark, Robert Kraus, Ledley B. Symmes, C. C. Williams, Telford Davis, Bedford Jackson and William T. Small, and James J. Wall, Abc Employees Association, Donald R. English, William R. Williams, E. A. Shands and Wife, Vera Shands, Counterclaim v. W. Douglas Powell, Individually and as Administrator of the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Charles S. Carter, Individually and as Assistant to the Administrator of New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, John E. Mowbray, William Rehder, W. Eugene Edwards, Individually and as Members of the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and Pender Durham
See also Bernasconi v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3, 548 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 82 (1978).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
English v. Powell
See also Bernasconi v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3, 548 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 82 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Reilly
See also United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 , 98 S.Ct. 72 , 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977); United States v. Cruz, 478 F.2d 408, 410-11 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 910 , 94 S.Ct. 231 , 38 L.Ed.2d 148 (1974).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fidelity Corp.
v.
Regal Ware, Inc.
v.
Regal Ware, Inc.
No. 76-1623.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1977.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.