28 U.S.C. § 656
Subpoenas
Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (relating to subpoenas) applies to subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence at an arbitration hearing under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1937–2003 · leading case: Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC.
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC. (2003)
“Furthermore, although 28 U.S.C. § 656 (2003) calls for a certification of arbitrators and the establishment of standards for federal court-appointed arbitrators, there appears to be a lack of standards or rules for a large portion of the ongoing extra-judicial arbitration.”
United States v. Johnson (1944)
“§ 878, 28 U.S.C. § 656 , of marshalling his witnesses), as well as the temptation to abuses, already referred to, in the administration of criminal justice.”
Moore v. Aderhold (1939)
“There was no showing,that petitioner or his attorney made application for an order that witnesses be subpoenaed in his behalf in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 656 , or that he was denied compulsory process for his witnesses.”
Harold W. Greenwell v. United States (1963)
“This became § 878 of the Revised Statutes of 1878, and then 28 U.S. C. § 656 (1928 ed.). See also Act of Aug.”
Brewer v. Hunter (1947)
“Revised Statutes, 28 U.S.C.A. § 656 , which authorizes the issuance and service of process, and the payment of fees to witnesses called in behalf of an accused indigent, in the same manner that fees and costs are paid when witnesses are subpoenaed in behalf of the Government.”
Gates v. United States (1941)
“” 28 U.S.C.A. § 656 . There was no authority for the payment of fees or mileage for witnesses outside the District of Colorado, or beyond 100 miles of the place of trial.”
United States v. Best (1948)
“Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 656 allowed subpoenas to issue to witnesses' residing within 100 miles of the place of trial.”
Casebeer v. Hudspeth (1941)
“§ 656 , authorizes in certain circumstances the issuance and service of process and the payment of the fees of witnesses in behalf of the accused in the same manner that like costs and fees are paid in case of witnesses subpoenaed in behalf of the government.”
McDonald v. Hudspeth (1940)
“Petitioners made no application to have additional witnesses subpoenaed ( 28 U.S.C.A. § 656 ), and there appears to have been no denial of compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.”
Fitzgerald v. Sanford (1944)
“28 U.S.C.A. § 656 . The refusal, if wrong, would be remediable by appeal and not by habeas corpus.”
United States v. Fox (1937)
“tain questioned documents and testify thereto on defend-, ant’s behalf, and that the costs incurred by reason of the employment should be paid in an amount to be fixed by the trial judge in the same manner that similar costs and fees are paid in the case of witnesses subpoenaed…”
United States v. Lang (1947)
“of this court with a certified list of the names of the men employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as agents who presented the evidence in his case before the Grand Jury, so that they can be subpoenaed in his action of Habeas Corpus in the court in which such action…”
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.