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
Gelbard v. United States (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 Trustee in Bankruptcy of Fenton, Lavine & Co., a Partnership v. Beau Berlinski Lavine (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 (1973)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 1826 . On April 5, 1978 Mrs.”
United States v. Harris (2009)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 1826 . Because he has been incarcerated for more than five years, Harris contends that the District Court erred in denying his motion.”
Rigby v. Mastro (In Re Mastro) (2018)
“%20%C2%A7%201826"> 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 (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 (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 (2019)
“…index="0" url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=28%20U.S.C.%20%C2%A7%201826"> 28 U.S.C. § 1826 . Because we determine that Thompson's sanctions do not fall under the eighteen-month incarceration limitation of § 1826, we AFFIRM the district court's order. I. BACKGROUND </s”
Morrison v. Olson (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 (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 (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 (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 (1973)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 1826 . On April 5, 1978 Mrs.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a)(1) — 1 case
— 28 U.S.C. § 1826(b) — 3 cases
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.