City of Los Angeles, a Mun. Corp. v. Honorable David W. Williams, United States Dist. Judge, P. J. Lupton, Real Party in Interest, 438 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
City of Los Angeles, a Mun. Corp. v. Honorable David W. Williams, United States Dist. Judge, P. J. Lupton, Real Party in Interest, 438 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Silva v. United States (ca9, 1995-03-28) · Strongest negative: In Re William H. Oswalt, D/B/A William Maxwell Construction Company (ca5, 1979-11-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" In Re William H. Oswalt, D/B/A William Maxwell Construction Company
5th Cir. · 1979 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see City of Los Angeles v. Williams, 438 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Silva v. United States
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Court, 418 F.2d 215 , 217 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 919 , 90 S.Ct. 926 , 25 L.Ed.2d 100 (1970); City of Los Angeles v. Williams, 438 F.2d 522, 522-23 (9th Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued to Charles D. Bailin. Edward Silva, Jr. Silva Harvesting Inc. Edward O.C. Ord, Inc. Ord & Norman v. United States of America, Edward Silva, Jr., an Individual Silva Harvesting Inc. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States of America, Real Party in Interest
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Court, 418 F.2d 215 , 217 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 919 , 90 S.Ct. 926 , 25 L.Ed.2d 100 (1970); City of Los Angeles v. Williams, 438 F.2d 522, 522-23 (9th Cir.1971). 16 In order to justify review by extraordinary writ, the district court's ruling on a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena must amount to a judicial "usurpation of power." Lampman, 418 F.2d at 217.
discussed Cited "see" Barclaysamerican Corporation v. Kane
10th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Los Angeles v. Williams, 438 F.2d 522 (9th Cir.1971) (noting that Will rejected argument that claim of privilege enjoys special status for extraordinary writs, and holding that grand jury subpoena demanding allegedly privileged matters was not reviewable by way of mandamus). 10 Further, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate a right to the writ which is "clear and indisputable." E.g., Will v. United States, supra, 389 U.S. at 96 ; 88 S.Ct. at 274 ; United States v. Winner, supra, 641 F.2d at 830 ; see also Daiflon, supra, 449 U.S. at 35 , 101 S.Ct. at 190 .
discussed Cited "see" Barclaysamerican Corp. v. Kane
10th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Los Angeles v. Williams, 438 F.2d 522 (9th Cir.1971) (noting that Will rejected argument that claim of privilege enjoys special status for extraordinary writs, and holding that grand jury subpoena demanding allegedly privileged matters was not reviewable by way of mandamus).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a Municipal Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Honorable David W. WILLIAMS, United States District Judge, Respondent. P. J. LUPTON, Real Party in Interest
71-1022_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 10, 1971.
438 F.2d 522
1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11925
Roger Arnebergh, L. A. City Atty., George Franscell, Asst. City Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner and real party in interest., Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Los An-geles, Cal., for respondent.
Duniway, Carter, Kilkenny.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The question presented is whether, in these circumstances, the order of the district court enforcing a grand jury subpoena is reviewable by way of writ of mandamus or prohibition.

Beyond question, the district court had jurisdiction to decide whether the subpoena demanded privileged material. Lampman v. United States District Court, 418 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 919, 90 S.Ct. 926, 25 L.Ed.2d 100 (1970). That the federal grand jury had authority to issue the subpoena, Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038, 4 L.Ed.2d 989 (1960), and had power to enforce a compliance with the requirements of the subpoena by an appropriate order, is well settled. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 327, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940). The contention that the claim of privilege enjoys a special status in considering a petition for an extraordinary writ has been expressly rejected[*523] by the United States Supreme Court in Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967). By undertaking to decide the issue of whether the material subpoenaed by the grand jury was privileged, the district court was acting within its jurisdiction and was not engaged in a “usurpation of power”, as that phrase is used in Will.

Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964), upon which petitioner relies, cannot be reconciled with Will v. United States, supra,, the case which controls our decision. The panel in Lampman v. United States District Court, supra, 418 F.2d p. 217, another case upon which petitioner relies, found it unnecessary to inquire into the impact of Will on Continental.

The petition is denied.