28 U.S.C. § 1826
Recalcitrant witnesses
1984—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 98–473 added subsec. (c).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 560
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41 (1972).
Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41 (1972). “These cases present challenges to the validity of adjudications of civil contempt, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1826 (a), [1] of witness before federal grand juries *43 who refused to comply with court orders to testify.”
Curtis B. Danning, as Tr. in Bankr. of Fenton, Lavine & Co., a P'ship v. Beau Berlinski Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1978). “The second issue is whether or not an order holding defendant a recalcitrant witness under 28 U.S.C. § 1826 for refusing to. answer questions at a deposition may continue in effect after a default judgment has been entered against the defendant.”
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. In Re Jacqueline Schofield, Witness, 486 F.2d 85 (3rd Cir. 1973). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1826 . On April 5, 1978 Mrs. Schofield was served with a subpoena commanding her to appear at 4042 United States Courthouse, 9th and Market Streets, Philadelphia, Pa.”
United States v. Harris, 582 F.3d 512 (3rd Cir. 2009). “Harris asserts that a coercive civil contempt necessarily becomes punitive after the passage of some period of time, and points to the eighteen-month period of confinement established by Congress for recalcitrant witnesses as an appropriate presumptive benchmark.”
Rigby v. Mastro (In Re Mastro), 585 B.R. 587 (9th Cir. BAP 2018). “In the context of criminal proceedings, the recalcitrant witness statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826 , which governs grand jury witnesses, emerged as the primary jurisdictional hook.”
In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of Joseph Braun, Witness, 600 F.2d 420 (3rd Cir. 1979). “In this appeal we must decide whether appellant’s confinement for civil contempt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826 (a) exceeds the period of time permissible under the due .”
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings Involving Eve Rosahn, 671 F.2d 690 (2d Cir. 1982). “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826 (a), Judge Cooper ordered that Rosahn be confined until she was willing to provide the items requested, until the expiration of the grand jury’s terms, or until May 9, 1983, whichever should occur first.”
United States v. Thomas Thompson, 925 F.3d 292 (6th Cir. 2019). “*294 Defendant-Appellant Thomas Thompson appeals the district court's denial of his motion to terminate his civil-contempt sanctions in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1826 . Because we determine that Thompson's sanctions do not fall under the eighteen-month incarceration limitation…”
Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988). “The court subsequently ordered that appellees be held in contempt pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1826 (a) for continuing to refuse to comply with the subpoenas.”
In the Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled February 14, 1978. Appeal of Nathan Markowitz, 603 F.2d 469 (3rd Cir. 1979). “be confined pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826 for refusing to disclose the identity of his client and for refusing to produce documents called for by a grand jury subpoena which had been served on him.”
United States v. Rocco Frumento in Re Subpoena to Vito N. Pisciotta, 552 F.2d 534 (3rd Cir. 1977). “Upon his refusal to testify, the district court entered an order of contempt and confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826 . Although the government contends that the termination of the trial at which he was to testify renders this appeal moot, we disagree.”
In Re: Grand Jury Proceedings of the Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197 (7th Cir. 2003). “3 The Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826 (b), the recalcitrant witness statute.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a) — 3 cases
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. In Re Jacqueline Schofield, Witness, 486 F.2d 85 (3rd Cir. 1973). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1826 . On April 5, 1978 Mrs. Schofield was served with a subpoena commanding her to appear at 4042 United States Courthouse, 9th and Market Streets, Philadelphia, Pa.”
Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. Dir. of Internal Revenue, 406 F. Supp. 1098 (E.D. Pa. 1976).
United States v. Mark Lawrence Alter, 482 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1973).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a)(1) — 1 case
Blaubergs v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 625 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1980).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1826(b) — 3 cases
In the Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings Empanelled May 1988. Appeal of Dennis Freligh, 894 F.2d 881 (7th Cir. 1990).
In the Matter of Grand Jury Witness, Anthony Russo, Jr. Anthony Russo, Jr. v. United States, 448 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1971).
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Richard Stanley Taylor v. United States, 509 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1975).
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.