How cited: Cluster 408088 · Go Syfert

Cluster 408088 (1982)

green · 83 citation events across 18 courts. Showing the 32 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
But See · 2d Cir. · signal: but see
But see In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Miller), 687 F.2d 1079 , 1091-92 (7th Cir.1982); In re Grand Jury Investigation (Sells), supra, 642 F.2d at 1191-92 .
But See · 2d Cir. · signal: but see
But see In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Miller), 687 F.2d 1079 , 1091-92 (7th Cir.1982); In re Grand Jury Investigation (Sells), supra, 642 F.2d at 1191-92 .
Rule Authority · 7th Cir. · 4 citations in this opinion
We have already gone so far as to say, in dicta, that “[w]e may not always be bound by a strict and literal interpretation of Rule 6(e) in the situation where there is some extraordinary and compelling need for disclosure in the interest of justice, and little traditional need for secrecy remains[.]” In re Special Feb., 1975 Grand Jury, 662 F.2d 1232, 1238 (7th Cir. 1981) aff'd on other grounds sub nom., United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 , 103 S.Ct. 3164 , 77 L.Ed.2d 785
district court “may not always be bound by a strict and literal interpretation of Rule 6(e)”
green Lucas v. Turner (1984)
Rule Authority · 7th Cir. · 4 citations in this opinion
We have held that "[a] request for grand jury documents may evoke different, and less exacting considerations than a request for transcripts of grand jury testimony." Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1089 (7th Cir.1982).
green Lucas v. Turner (1984)
Rule Authority · 7th Cir. · 4 citations in this opinion
We have held that “[a] request for grand jury documents may evoke different, and less exacting considerations than a request for transcripts of grand jury testimony.” Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1089 (7th Cir.1982).
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
See, e.g., In re Hastings, 735 F.2d at 1267-68 ; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1088 (7th Cir.1982) (stating, in dictum, that a court may have discretion to disclose grand jury records when there is an extraordinary and compelling need to do so in the interests of justice), vacated in part, 717 F.2d 1136 (7th Cir.1983); In re Special February, 1975 Grand Jury, 662 F.2d 1232, 1235-36 (7th Cir.1981), aff'd sub nom.
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
Under our case law, moreover, the disclosure of grand jury material is "left to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion." In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1088 (7th Cir.1982). 5 For these reasons, as we stated in our ruling from the bench, the conviction and sentence of Eugene B.
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
The appellants on the other hand rely on our decision in In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1085 (7th Cir.1982), which allowed an appeal to be taken from an order transferring grand jury transcripts to the United States Tax Court.
green In re Moore (1985)
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
The appellants on the other hand rely on our decision in In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1085 (7th Cir.1982), which allowed an appeal to be taken from an order transferring grand jury transcripts to the United States Tax Court.
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
For other cases where courts have held that the defendant has not made a sufficiently strong showing to justify disclosure of grand jury materials, see Lucas v. Turner, 725 F.2d 1095, 1099-1109 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Bennett, 702 F.2d 833, 836 (9th Cir.1983); Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1093 (7th Cir.1982); In re Grand Jury Matter, 682 F.2d 61, 63-67 (3d Cir.1982).
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
“Rule 6(e) codifies the traditional practice of grand jury secrecy.” Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Company, 687 F.2d 1079, 1088 (7th Cir.1982).
Rule Authority · N.D. Ill.
As the court here already cautioned Plaintiffs in connection with their March 2023 motion to compel, (see R. 274, May 11, 2023 Order at 2), the Seventh Circuit’s view is that “[Criminal] Rule 6(e) is applicable in a general way to both documents and testimony before the grand jury.” Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1090 (7th Cir. 1982).
Rule Authority · N.D. Ill.
Analysis Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)(B) protects from disclosure “a matter occurring before the grand jury.” The Seventh Circuit has held that “Rule 6(e) is applicable in a general way to both documents and testimony before the grand jury.” Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1090 (7th Cir. 1982).
green Anilao v. Spota (2013)
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y
Corp., No. 71 Civ. 4932 (D.N.E.), 87 F.R.D. 100, 105 (S.D.N.Y.1980); .see also In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1089 (7th Cir.1982).
Rule Authority · N.D. Ill.
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 400 , 79 S.Ct. 1237, 1241 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1323 (1959); Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1088 (7th Cir.1982).
Rule Authority · N.D. Ind.
Therefore, the policy of secrecy and the required showing of particularized need for disclosure of grand jury materials applies only to “matters occurring before the grand jury.” Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Company, 687 F.2d 1079, 1089 [7th Cir.1982].
Cited · 7th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079 , 1085 (7th Cir.1982), modified on other grounds, 717 F.2d 1136 (1983); United States v. Carney, 665 F.2d 1064, 1065 (D.C.Cir.1981) (per curiam); 9 Moore's Federal Practice p 110.13, at p. 193 (2d ed. 1983).
Cited (see also) · 5th Cir. · signal: see also
See I.R.C. § 7442; see also In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 687 F.2d 1079 , 1097 (7th Cir 1982).
Cited · 4th Cir. · signal: see
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1092 (7th Cir. 1982) (observing "that cost considerations are not usually enough by themselves to constitute particularized need").
observing "that cost considerations are not usually enough by themselves to constitute particularized need"
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also
See also Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1088 (7th Cir.1982).
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also
See also Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1088 (7th Cir.1982).
Cited · 6th Cir. · signal: see
United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 , 103 S.Ct. 3164 , 77 L.Ed.2d 785 (1983); see In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Miller Brewing Co.), 687 F.2d 1079, 1089-90 (7th Cir.1982).
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1089-90 (7th Cir.1982); In re Special February 1975 Grand Jury, 662 F.2d 1232, 1244 (7th Cir.1981) (supplemental opinion), aff’d under the name of United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 , 103 S.Ct. 3164 , 77 L.Ed.2d 785 (1983); United States v. Stanford, 589 F.2d 285, 291 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir.1960).
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Company, 687 F.2d 1079 , 1086 (7th Cir. 1982). .
green In Re Sells (1983)
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Company, 687 F.2d 1079 , 1086 (7th Cir.1982) 8 Cases decided since the issuance of the district court's disclosure order have clarified the relationship between allegations of abuse and the standards for granting a "(C)(i)" disclosure order.
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079 , 1089-90 (7th Cir.1982); In re Special February 1975 Grand Jury, 662 F.2d 1232, 1244 (7th Cir.1981) (supplemental opinion), aff'd under the name of United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 , 103 S.Ct. 3164 , 77 L.Ed.2d 785 (1983); United States v. Stanford, 589 F.2d 285, 291 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir.1960). 6 Illinois needs the appellants' …
Cited (see also) · D.D.C. · signal: see also
Douglas Oil, 441 U.S. at 219 ; see also Wright & Miller, supra, § 106.
Cited (see also) · S.D.N.Y. · signal: see also
Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Miller Brewing Co.), 687 F.2d 1079, 1098 (7th Cir.1982) (affirming district court's decision to grant government's request to disclose certain grand jury materials in connection with a judicial proceeding pursuant to former Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i), now found at Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i)).
Cited · D.D.C. · signal: see
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1089 (7th Cir.1982) (“A request for grand jury documents may evoke different, and less exacting considerations than a request for transcripts of grand jury testimony.”); SEC v. Everest Management Corp., 87 F.R.D. 100, 105 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (same).
Cited (see also) · E.D. Va. · signal: see also
See also In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Miller Brewing Co.), 687 F.2d 1079, 1090 (7th Cir. 1982), aff'd on rehearing, 717 F.2d 1136 (7th Cir. 1983); Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives & Records Service, 656 F.2d 856, 869-70 (D.C.Cir.1981); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 630 F.2d 996, 1001 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1081 , 101 S.Ct. 865 , 66 L.Ed.2d 805 (1980).
Cited · Tax Ct. · signal: see
In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Kluger) , 827 F.2d 868 , 871 (2d Cir. 1987) ; ARC Electrical Construction Co. v. Commissioner , 91 T.C. at 952-953 ; see In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co. , 687 F.2d 1079 , 1095-1096 (7th Cir. 1982) .
Cited · N.D. Ill. · signal: see
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1089-90 (7th Cir.1982). 4 .