Legal Opinion

United States v. Hill

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided June 20, 2018No. Misc. No. 18–mc–00023 (TSC)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

II. DISCUSSION

The court's role "in a proceeding to enforce an administrative subpoena is a strictly limited one." FTC v. Texaco, Inc. , 555 F.2d 862, 871-72 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The court is to determine whether " 'the inquiry is within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too indefinite and the information sought is reasonably relevant' " to the agency's investigation. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n v. ASAT, Inc. , 411 F.3d 245, 253 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co. , 338 U.S. 632, 652, 70 S.Ct. 357, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950) ). The subpoenaed party bears the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. United States v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  3. California v. CiraoloSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. United States v. Morton Salt Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  5. Riley v. Cal. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2014

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. RaymondDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API