United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393 (1st Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393 (1st Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Adams v. Corrections Corp. of America (coloctapp, 2011-09-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Adams v. Corrections Corp. of America (3×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Searle & Co., 816 F.2d 397, 399-400 (8th Cir.1987) (quoting Moore's Federal Practice for the proposition that "review for abuse of discretion not suited to section 1292(b) because there is no controlling question of law"); Comm. for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Seaborg, 463 F.2d 796, 799 (D.C.Cir.1971) (declining to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) the district court's order withholding certain documents from discovery because "[what is now involved on review is not so much a matter of stating controlling [legal] principles as reviewing their application"); United States v. Salter, 421 F.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harrisonville Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission
S.D. Ill. · 2006 · confidence medium
Co., 704 F.2d 144, 151 (5th Cir.1983) (noting “the probable unreviewability of virtually any discovery order” on interlocutory appeal); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 619 F.2d 72, 74 (Em.App.1980) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 474 , 98 S.Ct. 2454 , 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978)) (in general, allowing interlocutory appeals of discovery orders that can be reviewed on direct appeal from a final judgment would “authorize ... indiscriminate interlocutory review of decisions made by the trial judge”); Xerox Corp. v. SCM Corp., 534 F.2d 1031, 1032 (2d Cir.1976) (holding that…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bear Marine Services, and International Matex Tank Terminals, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Accord United States v. 5.96 Acres of Land, 593 F.2d 884, 887 (9th Cir.1979); Nickert v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 480 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir.1973); United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393, 1394 (1st Cir.1970); United States Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 785 (9th Cir.1966) (per curiam); Molybdenum Corp. v. Kasey, 279 F.2d 216, 217 (9th Cir.1960) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Castle v. SHERBURNE CORPORATION
Vt. · 1982 · confidence medium
Ct. App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832 (1980) (interlocutory appeal of discovery sanctions would not materially advance ultimate termination of the litigation); United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393, 1394 (1st Cir. 1970) (discovery order not a controlling question of law; United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 788 (9th Cir. 1959) (order to produce documents over claim of privilege not controlling question of law).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reuben J. Katz, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carte Blanche Corporation (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
E. g., United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393, 1394 (1st Cir. 1970); Akers v. Norfolk & Western Railroad Co., 378 F.2d 78 , 79 (4th Cir. 1967); J.
discussed Cited "see" Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Jerry Sine and Dora Sine, Individually and as Partners Doing Business as Jerry Sine Investments, Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Jerry Sine
10th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393 (1st Cir.); Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 2006, p. 31; but cf. Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir.).
discussed Cited "see" Brennan v. Sine
10th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393 (1st Cir.); Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2006, p. 31; but cf. Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir.).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fleet Data Processing Corp. v. Branch (In Re Bank of New England Corp.)
1st Cir. BAP · 1998 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393 , 1394 (1st Cir.1970) (vacating order allowing interlocutory appeal after reconsideration, concluding that the pre-trial discovery order did not “involve an ultimate question of law in the case ”)(emphasis added); In re Murray, 116 B.R. 6, 9 (D.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Inmates of Unit 14 v. Rebideau
N.D.N.Y. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence medium
United States v. Woodbury, supra, 263 F.2d at 787-88 ; Brown v. Bullock, 294 F.2d 415, 417-18 (2d Cir. en banc 1961); see also United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393, 1394 (1st Cir. 1970).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Resnick v. American Dental Ass'n
N.D. Ill. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393 (1st Cir. 1970) (acknowledging the force of our Court of Appeals’ decision in Commonwealth Edison where an ultimate question of law in the case was posed by the pre-trial disclosure order — not true in Salter or here); United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1959); SEC v. Canadian Javelin Limited, 451 F.Supp. 594, 598 (D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States of America and Robert Gray, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service
v.
Lester H. Salter, and Local 57, International Union of Operating Engineers, Intervenor
363_1.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Feb 24, 1970.
421 F.2d 1393
1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10576
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

421 F.2d 1393

UNITED STATES of America and Robert Gray, Special Agent,
Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners,
v.
Lester H. SALTER, Respondent, and Local 57, International
Union of Operating Engineers, Intervenor.

Misc. No. 363.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 1970.
Decided Feb. 24, 1970.

Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, on petition for permission to appeal.

James R. McGowan, Providence, R.I., on motion to vacate order granting permission to appeal.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.

ALDRICH, Chief Judge.

1

Respondent moves for reconsideration of our ex parte order allowing an interlocutory appeal, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), from a discovery order of the district court in an Internal Revenue subpoena matter. His principal contention is that there is not a 'controlling question of law,' as statutorily required. We have assumed, without deciding, in similar circumstances that there would be such a question. Goldfine v. Pastore, 1 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 519, 521. On further consideration we believe there is not. Pre-trial disclosure may indeed involve an ultimate question of law in the case, Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., N.D.Ill., 1963, 225 F.Supp. 332, aff'd 335 F.2d 203, but it may not. Here the only question is the admissibility of certain evidence on a legally relevant, Lash v. Nighosian, 1 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 185, cert. denied 362 U.S. 904, 80 S.Ct. 610, 4 L.Ed.2d 554, issue. This is not a controlling question of law. United States v. Woodbury, 9 Cir., 1959, 263 F.2d 784. We prefer the dissenting to the majority opinion in Groover, Christie & Merritt v. LoBianco, 1964, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 50, 336 F.2d 969.

2

The order allowing an interlocutory appeal is vacated. If the matter be thought sufficiently serious, a petition for mandamus may be filed. Cf. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Adkins, 9 Cir., 1964, 330 F.2d 595. We need hardly say that the burden here is much heavier, and a very substantial showing of prejudice must be made before we would even consider such a petition. Cf. Switzerland Cheese Ass'n, Inc. v. Horne's Market, Inc., 1 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 552, aff'd 385 U.S. 23, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23.