Sec v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (1981)
green
· 111 citation events
across 22 courts.
Showing the 25 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198120032026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
United States v. American Target Advertising,incorporated Viguerie and Associates, Incorporated the Viguerie … (2001)
Id. at 130 (citation omitted).
citation omitted
Indeed, as the Third Circuit has remarked, "[t]he reality of prosecutorial experience, that most investigations originate on the basis of tips, suggestions, or importunings of third parties, including commercial competitors, need hardly be noted." Wheeling-Pittsburgh, supra, 648 F.2d at 130.
green
Secretary Labor v. Koresko (2005)
First, the agency must demonstrate, through affidavits of its agents, that its subpoena meets the threshold requirements for enforcement, SEC v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F.2d 118, 128 (3d Cir. 1981) (en banc): “(1) the inquiry must be within the authority of the agency, (2) the demand for production must not be too indefinite, and (3) the information sought must be reasonably relevant to the authorized inquiry.” United States v. Westinghouse Elec.
en banc
green
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. MICHAEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellee (1983)
Id. at 127-130.
green
Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Community Trust Company (2007)
“If the government makes this preliminary showing, the burden then shifts to the respondent to prove that enforcement of the subpoena would be improper....” Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 648 F.2d at 128.
green
Secretary Labor v. Comm Trust Co (2007)
“If the government makes this preliminary showing, the burden then shifts to the respondent to prove that enforcement of the subpoena would 7 be improper . . ..” Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 648 F.2d at 128.
"The ultimate inquiry ... is whether the enforcement of the administrative subpoena would constitute an abuse of the court's process." Wheeling — Pittsburgh, 648 F.2d at 125.
“The ultimate inquiry ... is whether the enforcement of the administrative subpoena would constitute an abuse of the court’s process.” Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 648 F.2d at 125.
green
NJ Univ Medicine v. Inspector Gen HHS (2003)
“The ultimate inquiry . . . is whether the enforcement of the administrative subpoena would constitute an abuse of the court’s process.” Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 648 F.2d at 125.
green
United States v. Teeven (1990)
The court disagreed “with the ... premise that the Supreme Court has foreclosed incremental development of the law by the courts when faced with allegations of egregious abuse.” Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 648 F.2d at 123.
green
Federal Trade Commission v. Match Group, Inc. (2023)
More, the burden is on Respondent to make the requisite showing before dis- covery will be ordered, see, e.g., Standing Akimbo, 955 F.3d at 1155 (10th Cir. 2020); Markwood, 48 F.3d at 983 ; Thriftyman, 704 F.2d at 1249 ; Will, 671 F.2d at 968 ; Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F.2d at 128; Stuckley, 646 F.2d at 1374 ; Moon, 616 F.2d at 1047 (8th Cir. 1980); Mor- gan Guar.
“If the [agency] makes this preliminary showing, the burden then shifts to the respondent to prove that enforcement of the subpoena would be improper under the test enunciated in Powell.” Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 648 F.2d at 128.
green
United States v. Witmer (1993)
This court believes that the standard for granting discovery in this case is that set forth by the court in Interstate Dress Carriers, 610 F.2d at 112, and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, 648 F.2d at 127-28.
SEC v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F.2d at 125.
green
United States v. Custodian of Records (1990)
SEC v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F.2d at 125.
green
United States v. Armada Petroleum Corp. (1982)
S.E.C. v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., supra, 648 F.2d at 125, n. 9.
green
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Carla Marin (2020)
See SEC v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F.2d 118 , 128 (3d Cir. 1981); Jerry T.
See SEC v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F.2d 118 , 128 (3d Cir. 1981); Jerry T.
green
Guy Gentile v. SEC (2020)
Disabled for Attendant Programs Today v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 170 F.3d 381 , 384 (3d Cir. 1999) (opining, in a failure to investigate case, that Chaney “established a presumption against judicial review of agency decisions that involve whether to undertake investigative or enforcement actions” (emphasis in original)); see also Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 608 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“A United States Attorney’s decision to prosecute, for example, will…
collecting cases
green
United States v. Community Bank And Trust Company (1985)
See also Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F.2d 118, 123 (3d Cir.1981). 14 The district court ruled that the cases cited by the IRS do not establish that the courts have lost their power to protect parties from burdens imposed by the agencies.
green
United States v. Community Bank & Trust Co. (1985)
See also Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F.2d 118, 123 (3d Cir.1981).
green
Smithkline Corporation v. Elmer Staats, Comptroller General of the United States, and the United States of Am… (1981)
See 648 F.2d at 125.
green
State of Delaware Dept of Finance v. AT&T Inc. (2021)
The burden is a heavy one.”); SEC v. Knopfler, 658 F.2d 25 , 26 (2d Cir. 1981) (“When the Commission has met the normal statutory prerequisites for enforcement, the opponent of a subpoena has a heavy burden if he seeks denial of enforcement on the ground that the subpoena is sought for an invalid purpose.”); N.L.R.B. v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 610 F.2d 99 , 112 (3d Cir. 1979) (“[T]he burden on the party to whom the subpoena is addressed is not a meager one.”). 57 Un…
internal quotation marks omitted
green
Greer v. New Jersey Bureau of Securities (1996)
Once the SEC has met the normal statutory prerequisites for enforcement, the opponents of the subpoena have a heavy burden if they seek "denial of enforcement on the ground that the subpoena is sought for an invalid purpose." Securities and Exchange Commission v. Knopfler, 658 F. 2d 25, 26 (2nd Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 908 , 102 S.Ct. 1255 , 71 L.Ed. 2d 446 (1982); See also Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F. 2d 118, 128 (3r…