green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
10.3 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[As] an incident of the constitutional separation of powers, ... the courts are not free to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the attorneys of the United States... ”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
"[t]he Grand Jury earned its place in the Bill of Rights by its shield, not by its sword"
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jernigan v. State of Miss.
ourts are not to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the attorneys of the united states in their control over criminal proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Albert W. Coachman. Appeal of Wendell Hill (Material Witness). United States of America v. Albert W. Coachman. Appeal of Gary Ballard (Material Witness)
he grand jury earned its place in the bill of rights by its shield, not by its sword
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
LaRouche v. Webster
an incident of the constitutional separation of powers, ... the courts are not free to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the attorneys of the united states...
discussed
Cited "see"
Moore v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 , 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3100 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) ("[The] Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case" in the first instance, (citing United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965))); Commonwealth v. Gordon, 410 Mass. 498 , 574 N.E.2d 974, 975 (1991) ("[T]he decision to nol pros a criminal case is within the discretion of the executive branch of government, free from judicial intervention."); see also Commonwealth v. …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gilliam
(2×)
See generally Cox v. Hauberg, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Slick
See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 189 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
Norman R. Harrington v. R. Christopher Almy, Etc.
(2×)
See generally, United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Easton, United States of America v. Michael Easton A/K/A Michael Bitgood, Michael J. Bitgood, Michael Bitgood Easton, and Michael J.B. Bitgood
See id. at 118 . 9 Easton cites United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965), which contains the following dicta: "Without the [government attorney's] signature there can be no criminal proceeding brought upon an indictment....
cited
Cited "see"
Fields v. Soloff
See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 189 (5th Cir.) (en banc ), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965) (Wisdom, J. concurring).
cited
Cited "see"
Fields v. Soloff
See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 189 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965) (Wisdom, J. concurring).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Maribel Laboy, A/K/A Jennifer Morales, Mary Torres
Fed.R.Cr.P. 7(c); see United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Clay
See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (CA5) (en banc), cert. den. 381 U.S. 935 , 14 L.Ed. 2d 700 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 (1965), and authorities cited therein; 342 F. 2d, at 182 (Brown, J., concurring); id., at 185 (Wisdom, J., concurring); see generally United States v. Thompson, 251 U.S. 407, 413-417 , 64 L.Ed. 333 , 40 S.Ct. 289 [291-93] (1920).
discussed
Cited "see"
Outlet Communications, Inc. v. King World Productions, Inc.
One Florida district court has held that indictable implies probable cause and that probable cause can be determined “only if the factual basis of the predicate acts is set out with specificity.” Banco de Desarrollo Agropecuario, S.A. v. Gibbs, 640 F.Supp. 1168, 1175 (S.D.Fla. 1986); see United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 170 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
Young v. United States Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A.
(2×)
See United States v. Cox, 342 F. 2d 167 (CA5) (en banc), cert. denied, 381 U. S. 935 (1965), and authorities cited therein; 342 F. 2d, at 182 (Brown, J., concurring); id., at 185 (Wisdom, J., concurring); see generally United States v. Thompson, 251 U. S. 407, 413-417 (1920).
cited
Cited "see"
Belton v. Air Atlanta, Inc.
See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Muroski
(2×)
See U.S. v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 , 171 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Coachman
See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 186 (5th Cir.) (Wisdom, J„ concurring specially), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965) ("[t]he Grand Jury earned its place in the Bill of Rights by its shield, not by its sword”). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hon. Judge Almeric L. Christian
(2×)
See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 186 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (Wisdom, J., concurring specially), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lloyd
See United *208 States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S. Ct. 1767 , 14 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gasser v. Morgan
See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1965) cert. denied 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 ; United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1975); Shaw v. Garrison, 467 F.2d 113 (5th Cir. 1972) cert. denied 409 U.S. 1024 , 93 S.Ct. 467 , 34 L.Ed.2d 317 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Preston v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Patent in this assertion is recognition of the fact that "[t]he grand jury cannot be expected to call for evidence of which it is kept ignorant." Id. at 165 , quoting Johnson v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 248 , 124 Cal. Rptr. 32, 34 , 539 P.2d 792, 794 (1975). [16] Frink v. State, 597 P.2d 154, 165 (Alaska 1979), quoting American Bar Association, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function and the Defense Function § 3.6(b), at 89 (Approved Draft 1971); see generally Coleman v. State, 553 P.2d 40, 47-52 (Alaska 1976). [17] See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 , 186 n. 1 (5th Cir.) (…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gold
Crowley v. United States, 194 U.S. 461, 475 , 24 S.Ct. 731 , 48 L.Ed. 1075 (1904); see United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 , 171 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Howard P. Carroll, Robert C. Wilson, and Jerry A. McFarland
Accord, United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Report of Grand Jury
See United States v. Cox, 342 F. 2d 167 , 186-189 (5th Cir.) (Wisdom J. concurring) cert. denied, 381 U. S. 935 , 85 S. Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965); In re Jordan, 439 F. Supp. 199, 204-205 (S.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Application of Jordan
See, for example, the confusion concerning prosecutorial function implicit in Judge Brown’s concurring opinion in United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965) where he states at 182: the practical operation of the prosecutorial function makes imperative the need for executive determination.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Herman Chanen
See generally United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Patty McClain Joseph M. Rodriguez, Ada Eveleigh Simpson, William Clark Simpson and Mike Bradshaw
See United States v. Cox, 5 Cir. 1965, 342 F.2d 167 (en banc), cert, denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 . 31 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lazard
See, United States v. Cox (5th Cir. 1965), 342 F.2d 167 , cert. den., 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cowan
See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 , 173-81' (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965) (Rives, Gewin and Bell, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part) . 4 For the foregoing reasons, it is accordingly Ordered that Wayne O.
discussed
Cited "see"
Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States v. The Honorable John J. Sirica, United States District Judge, and Archibald Cox, Special Prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force, Party in Interest. United States of America v. The Honorable John J. Sirica, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, Party in Interest. In Re Grand Jury Proceedings
See generally Note, 37 Minn.L.Rev., supra note 145, at 599-600 159 United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965), is not to the contrary.
cited
Cited "see"
The State of Georgia v. The Honorable John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States
See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965), cert, denied 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles E. Varner
See United States v. Cox, 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 167 (en banc), cert. denied, sub nom., Cox v. Hauberg, 1965, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 ; Luna v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1968, 395 F.2d 35 (en banc), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 966 , 89 S.Ct. 1310 , 22 L.Ed.2d 568 ; Sumrall v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 397 F.2d 924 , cert. denied, 393 U.S. 991 , 89 S.Ct. 467 , 21 L.Ed.2d 455 . 23 I therefore concur specially.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Peter William Saunders, Jr.
See United States v. Cox, 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 167 , cert. denied, Cox v. Hauberg, 1965, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Aloi
See, e.g., People v. Krum, 374 Mich. 356, 362 , 132 N.W.2d 69 , cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S. Ct. 1765 , 14 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Wallace J. Kaminski
See also United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 , (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965) (per curiam) (the United States Attorney could not be required to draft or sign an indictment upon the request of a grand jury).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Olagues v. Russoniello
See also United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (“courts are not to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the attorneys of the United States in their control over criminal prosecutions”), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
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. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.) (en banc) ("courts are not to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the attorneys of the United States in their control over criminal prosecutions"), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert James Miller
See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gerald L. Singer, United States of America v. Raymond E. Wagner
(2×)
See also United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.) (banc), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. David Spicer
See, e. g., United States v. Cox, 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 167 , cert. denied, 1965, sub nom., Cox v. Hauberg, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 . 9a The propriety of our interpretation is supported by United States v. Bishop, 1973, 412 U.S. 346 , 93 S.Ct. 2008 , 36 L.Ed.2d 941 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Issac Washington and Peter Rinaldi
See e. g., United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerome T. Bland
See also DeBacker v. Sigler, 185 Neb. 352 , 175 N.W.2d 912 (1970), and Mayne v. Turner, 24 Utah 2d 195 , 468 P.2d 369 (1970), sustaining concurrent jurisdiction in their respective adult and juvenile courts over certain enumerated offenses 21 Long v. Robinson, 316 F.Supp. 22 (D.Md.), aff'd 436 F.2d 1116 (4th Cir. 1971) 22 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966) 23 United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, Cox v. Hauberg, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965) (footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. J. W. Robinson
Compare the power of any United States Attorney to refuse to permit a Grand Jury’s true bill to become an effective indictment United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. En Banc 1965), cert. denied, Cox v. Hauberg, 381 U.S. 935 , 85 S.Ct. 1767 , 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Krum
v.
Michigan
v.
Michigan
No. 1039.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1965.
Charles C. Wickett and Andrew F. Oeh-mann for petitioner. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and James R. Ramsey, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Cited by 17 opinions | Published
Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.