green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1987 ·
…a federal court's jurisdiction is not determined by its power to issue a subpoena; its power to issue a subpoena is determined by its jurisdiction.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, (Billy J. Williams, Gj88-1) v. United States
But see United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 422-23 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 , 103 S.Ct. 3554 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983) (refusing to quash a grand jury subpoena seeking depositions in a civil case given with an understanding of confidentiality); United States v. GAF Corp., 596 F.2d 10, 16 (2d Cir.1979) (not allowing the Department of Justice to use a civil investigative demand to reach discovery materials in private litigation under protective order). 5 .
discussed
Cited "but see"
In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Special Grand Jury, September, 1986 Term.
But cf. United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 422 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 , 103 S.Ct. 3554 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983) (the assertion by the defendant that he relied on an "understanding of confidentiality” was evaluated by the court but rejected). .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re United States Catholic Conference
a federal court's jurisdiction is not determined by its power to issue a subpoena; its power to issue a subpoena is determined by its jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc. v. Baker
a federal court's jurisdiction is not determined by its power to issue a subpoena; its power to issue a subpoena is determined by its jurisdiction.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas
See In re Marc Rich & Co., A.G. (“Marc Rich”), 707 F.2d 663, 670 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied 463 U.S. 1215 (1983); In re Sealed Case, 832 F.2d 1268, 1274 (D.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003 Directed to (A) Grand Jury Witness Firm and (B) Grand Jury Witness
In re John Doe, Inc., 13 F.3d 633, 636 (2d Cir.1994); accord In re Marc Rich & Co., 707 F.2d 663, 670 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 , 103 S.Ct. 3555 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983); In re Grand Jury Subpoena dated August 9, 2000, 218 F.Supp.2d 544, 551 (S.D.N.Y.2002), aff'd, 318 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 2003). 64 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Debra Nicholson, United States of America v. Rodney Dewayne Floyd, United States of America v. Donald R. Miller, Also Known as Donnie Miller, United States of America v. Frankie Webb, United States of America v. Marcus Deshun Sanders, United States of America v. Maurice Jerome McDonald United States of America v. Jamo Jenkins, Also Known as Jaymo Jenkins
See United States v. Rivera-Ramirez, 715 F.2d 453, 456 (9th Cir. 1983) (where defendant did not timely appeal, attack on conviction was collateral in nature), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Matter of Marc Rich & Co., A.G., 707 F.2d 663, 667 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 (1983) (holding that grand jury witness could not resist production of documents on ground that documents were located abroad); EX parte Gould, 132 SW. 364, 369 (Tex. Crim App. 1910) (subpoena duces tecum defined as a process for commanding a person to produce document he has in his possession or control).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re: Grand Jury
See generally In re Marc Rich & Co., 707 F.2d 663, 670 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 (1983); In re Grand Jury Matter (Catania), 682 F.2d 61, 66 (3d Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings
(2×)
See generally In re Marc Rich & Co., 707 F.2d 663, 670 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 , 77 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Enforce Administrative Subpoenas Duces Tecum of the Securities & Exchange Commission v. Knowles
See Marc Rich & Co. v. United States (In re Marc Rich & Co.), 707 F.2d 663, 668 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 , 103 S.Ct. 3555 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983); FTC v. Compagnie de Saint-Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson, 636 F.2d 1300, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Extradition of Montiel Garcia
See In re Marc Rich & Co., 707 F.2d 663, 666 (2d Cir.) (“territorial,” “protective,” “universality,” and “passive” being the other four), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 , 103 S.Ct. 3555 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Sealed Case
See Marc Rich & Co. v. United States, 707 F.2d 663, 670 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 , 103 S.Ct. 3555 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Robert Landau Associates, Inc.
See United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 423 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 , 103 S.Ct. 3554 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983) (government granted access to documents sealed in the bankruptcy court in view of provision of protective order which allowed entity examined by trustee to disclose the information deemed confidential to any person or entity).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. George G. Davis
See In re Marc Rich & Co., A.G., 707 F.2d 663, 666 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 , 103 S.Ct. 3555 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983); Laker, supra, 731 F.2d at 921-22; Restatement (Revised) § 402(l)(c) (Tent.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dale R. Javino
Though Congress may prescribe laws concerning conduct outside of the territorial boundaries of the United States “that has or is intended to have substantial effect” within the United States, Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 402(l)(c) (1987) (“Restatement”); see, e.g., In re Marc Rich & Co., A.G., 707 F.2d 663, 666 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1215 , 103 S.Ct. 3555 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983); see also Restatement § 402(l)(a), (b), (2), and (3) (setting forth additional accepted bases for extraterritorial application of legislation), it *1143 may not regulate such con…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Veliotis
v.
United States and Davis v. United States
v.
United States and Davis v. United States
No. 82-2006; No. 82-2015.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1983.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (2)
C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of the Solicitor General to expedite consideration of the petitions for writs of certiorari granted. Certio-rari denied. Reported below: 702 F. 2d 418.