15 U.S.C. § 23
Suits by United States; subpoenas for witnesses
In any suit, action, or proceeding brought by or on behalf of the United States subpoenas for witnesses who are required to attend a court of the United States in any judicial district in any case, civil or criminal, arising under the antitrust laws may run into any other district: Provided, That in civil cases no writ of subpoena shall issue for witnesses living out of the district in which the court is held at a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place of holding the same without the permission of the trial court being first had upon proper application and cause shown.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1932–2025 · leading case: United States v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 90 F.R.D. 377 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
United States v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 90 F.R.D. 377 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). “First, plaintiff argues that Rule 32(a)(3)(B) does not apply when the deponents are sub *380 ject to the court’s subpoena power under 15 U.S.C. § 23 (1976), which permits a witness to be subpoenaed nationwide in antitrust suits brought by the United States.”
Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach, 919 A.2d 722 (Md. 2007). “15 U.S.C. § 23 10(a)(3)(C). Furthermore, the legislative history of the MMWA also reveals the congressional intent to prevent consumers from being forced into binding arbitration because such a resolution would constitute a substitute for litigation.”
Ghandi v. Police Dep't of Detroit, 74 F.R.D. 115 (E.D. Mich. 1977). “736 , 15 U.S.C.A. § 23 was denied since its activities within the district were sufficient to support service of process); Elder-Beerman Stores Corp.”
In Re Subpoenas Addressed to Fish & Neave & Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, 519 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1975). “FINDINGS OF FACT (1) On November 21, 1974, this Court authorized the issuance of trial subpoenas, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 23 . (2) The subpoenas were subpoenas duces tecum that called for the production of approximately 150 documents which are in the possession, custody, or…”
Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 213 (E.D. La. 2008). “15 U.S.C. § 23 . Likewise, in the context of veteran’s benefits, the National Service Life Insurance Act provides that in suits involving claims for war risk insurance: subpenas [sic] for witnesses who are required to attend a court of the United States in any district may run…”
Amgen Inc. v. Kidney Ctr. of Delaware Cnty., Ltd., 879 F. Supp. 878 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “” 15 U.S.C. § 23 (1914); see also the Veteran’s Benefits Act, 38 U.”
Chao v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 255 F.R.D. 556 (N.D. Ala. 2009). “The Court finds that the minority interpretation of Rule 45 described in Big Lots and other similar cases is correct.”
King v. Douglass, 973 F. Supp. 707 (S.D. Tex. 1996). “15 U.S.C. §§ 23 , 36. Section 36(b) of the ICA imposes a fiduciary duty on investment company advisers not to receive excessive compensation.”
United States v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 71 F.R.D. 88 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). “Brueck argues that in spite of 15 U.S.C. § 23 (1970) that this court is without the power to order delivery of documents located in one judicial district to a second judicial district pursuant to a “discovery” subpoena.”
United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 183 F. Supp. 858 (S.D.N.Y. 1960). “15 U.S.C.A. § 23 . Nor are they represented in this proceeding.”
In Re Gen. Motors Corp. Pickup Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 846 F. Supp. 330 (E.D. Pa. 1993). “§ 1125 (a), the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 23 (d)(1), and common law claims including strict liability, fraud, unfair trade practices and breach of contract, and assert that the litigation should proceed as a class action; WHEREAS, General Motors Corporation denies…”
United States v. Scott & Williams, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 531 (S.D.N.Y. 1950). “Compulsory process is available to compel witnesses to come from any part of the United States, 15 U.S.C.A. § 23 .' As to willing witnesses, it is true that no claim is made that any prospective witness resides or has an office in the Southern District of New York.”
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.