Legal Opinion

United States v. Harold Judson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 30, 1963No. 18010_1PublishedCited by 101 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JERTBERG, Circuit Judge.

Harold Judson, Esq., an attorney practicing in the above entitled District Court, after having been served with a subpoena duces tecum, by authority of Rule 17(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., filed a motion to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive. The subpoena directed Appellee to produce before the Grand Jury the following items:

“1] All paid checks and bank statements of the commercial accounts of Miriam Y. Stacher at the Bank of America, Main Office, Beverly Hills, California, covering the periods…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  3. Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  4. United States v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  5. United States v. Louis KovelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by101 opinions

  1. Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Couch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. United States v. Martin SchwimmerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
  4. United States v. Maurice H. Friedman, United States of America v. Manuel JacobsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971
  5. In Re Bruce R. Lindsey (Grand Jury Testimony)Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998

96 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API