Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 36 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling Anchor | green | “adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry.” | 6 |
| 2 | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shell Oil Co. | green | “virtually any material that might cast light on the allegations against the employer.” | 6 |
| 3 | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shell Oil Co. | green | “jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial enforcement of a subpoena issued by the eeoc.” | 5 |
| 4 | Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling | green | “relevancy and adequacy or excess in the breadth of the subpoena are matters variable in relation to the nature, purposes and scope of the inquiry.” | 4 |
| 5 | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner-Appellee, v. TEMPEL STEEL COMPANY, Respondent-Appellant | green | “as long as the investigation is within the agency's authority, the subpoena is not too indefinite, and the information sought is reasonably relevant, the district court must enforce an administrative subpoena.” | 3 |
| 6 | United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company | green | “why we review questions of relevance and undue burden de novo is unclear” | 3 |
| 7 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McLane Co. | green | “appeared to review issues related to enforcement of administrative subpoenas for abuse of discretion.” | 3 |
| 8 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McLane Co. | green | “why we review questions of relevance and undue burden de novo is unclear” | 3 |
| 9 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McLane Co. | green | “the eeoc does not have to show a 'particularized necessity of access, beyond a show- ing of mere relevance,' to obtain evidence.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.