Carmelia Urasaki v. United States Dist. Court, Cent. Dist. of California, United States of Am., Real Party in Interest, 504 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Carmelia Urasaki v. United States Dist. Court, Cent. Dist. of California, United States of Am., Real Party in Interest, 504 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Rice, Nero, Miller White & Goodson v. State (md, 2016-05-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Rice, Nero, Miller White & Goodson v. State
Md. · 2016 · confidence medium
Dist. of Cal., 504 F.2d 513, 514 (9th Cir.1974); In re Lochiatto, 497 F.2d 803 , 804 n. 2 (1st Cir.1974); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 486 F.2d 1013, 1016 (3d Cir.1973); In re Kilgo, 484 F.2d 1215, 1219 (4th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ousley
Ill. · 2009 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d 430 , 438 n.11, 103 S. Ct. 608 , 612 n.11 (1983) (“Congress foresaw the courts as playing only a minor role in the immunizing process: ‘The court’s role in granting the order is merely to find the facts on which the order is predicated.’ [Citations.]”); United States v. Hamilton, 46 F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 1995) (“We agree with the government that a determination regarding use immunity is a matter of prosecutorial discretion”); Urasaki v. United States District Court, 504 F.2d 513, 514 (9th Cir. 1974) (“In passing upon an immunity application, the (district) court is conf…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Dist., 504 F.2d 513, 514 (9th Cir.1974): In passing upon an immunity application, the [federal district] court is confined to an examination of the application and the documents accompanying it for the purpose only of deciding whether or not the application meets the procedural and substantive requirements of the authorizing statute.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Petition to Compel Testimony of Tuso
N.J. · 1977 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Ullman v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 434 , 76 S.Ct. 497 , 100 L.Ed. 511 , reh. den. 351 U.S. 928 , 76 S.Ct. 777 , 100 L.Ed. *585 1457 (1956); United States v. Leyva, 513 F. 2d 774, 776 (5 Cir.1975); Urasaki v. United States District Court, 504 F. 2d 513, 514 (9 Cir.1974); In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 486 F. 2d 1013, 1016 (3 Cir.1973) (dictum), cert. den. sub nom., Testa v. United States, 417 U.S. 919 , 94 S.Ct. 2625 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 224 (1974); In Re Kilgo, 484 F. 2d 1215, 1219 (4 Cir.1973); In Re Russo, 448 F. 2d 369, 372-73 (9 Cir.1971); In Re Shead, 302 F. Supp. 569, 570 (N.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Petition to Compel Testimony of Tuso
N.J. · 1977 · confidence medium
Ed. 1457 (1956); United States v. Leyva, 513 F. 2d 774, 776 (5 Cir. 1975); Urasaki v. United States District Court, 504 F. 2d 513, 514 (9 Cir. 1974); In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 486 F. 2d 1013, 1016 (3 Cir. 1973) (dictum), cert. den. sub nom., Testa v. United States, 417 U. S. 919 , 94 S. Ct. 2625 , 41 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carmelia URASAKI, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent; UNITED STATES of America, Real Party in Interest
74-2564.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 7, 1974.
504 F.2d 513
Leon Goldin, Hollywood, Cal., for petitioner., A. Andrew Hauk, U. S. District Judge, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent., William 'D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for real party in interest.
Hufstedler, Wallace.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

PUBLISHED ORDER

“In passing upon an immunity application, the [district] court is confined to an examination of the application and the documents accompanying it for the purpose only of deciding whether or not the application meets the procedural and substantive requirements of the authorizing statute. (In re Russo (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 369; cf. Ullmann v. United States (1956) 350 U.S. 422 [434], 76 S.Ct. 497, 100 L.Ed. 511.)” Bursey v. United States (9th Cir. 1972), 466 F.2d 1059, 1073.

The immunity application in this case, together with its supporting documents, prima, facie complies with the statutory authority pursuant to which immunity was sought. The application contains the necessary request by the United States Attorney and approval by an Assistant Attorney General, who in this instance was designated by 28 C.F. R. § 0.175(a) as the person having authority thus conferred. We judicially notice that Henry E. Petersen, whose name appears on the authorization letter, was the Assistant Attorney General then in charge of the Criminal Division.

Adversary procedure is- not a part of the legislative scheme in connection with the district court’s performance of its limited duties in granting or denying the application for immunity. Adversary process does not commence until the grand jury seeks an order compelling the witness to respond to questions that he or she has refused to answer after a prior grant of immunity. (Bursey v. United States, supra, 466 F.2d at 1073-1075. Cf. Beverly v. United States (5th Cir. 1972), 468 F.2d 732, 746-747.) [1]

The petition for writ of mandate is denied.

1

. The Government’s reliance (both before the district court and before us) on Licata v. United States (9th Cir. 1970), 429 F.2d 1177, is misplaced. Licata was vacated by the Supreme Court. (Licata v. United States (1970), 400 U.S. 938, 91 S.Ct. 239, 27 L.Ed.2d 243.)