28 C.F.R. § 16.28
Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling
If the court or other authority declines to stay the effect of the demand in response to a request made in accordance with § 16.27 of this chapter pending receipt of instructions, or if the court or other authority rules that the demand must be complied with irrespective of instructions rendered in accordance with §§ 16.24 and 16.25 of this part not to produce the material or disclose the information sought, the employee or former employee upon whom the demand has been made shall, if so directed by the responsible Department official, respectfully decline to comply with the demand. See United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: United States v. Steven Baker, 496 F. App'x 201 (3rd Cir. 2012).
United States v. Steven Baker, 496 F. App'x 201 (3rd Cir. 2012). “28 C.F.R. § 16.28 (c) requires that those seeking testimony from a Department of Justice employee, where the United States is a party, first submit an affidavit “setting forth a summary of the testimony sought.”
State of Indiana v. Adams, 892 F. Supp. 1101 (S.D. Ind. 1995). “28 C.F.R. § 16.28 (1994). Thus, to the extent that such refusal may pose an awkward conflict between a federal agency and a state court, the policy ramifications of that conflict have already been considered by the Department of Justice through the promulgation of the…”
Barnette v. Folmar, 151 F.R.D. 685 (M.D. Ala. 1993). “28 C.F.R. § 16.28 . In this case, the government has known, at least since July 1992, that the court was going to order the release of specific documents from the FBI files.”
Terrance Lavern Walker v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). “]” In addition, 28 C.F.R. § 16.28 provides that “if the court .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.