Baylson v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
RAYMOND J. BRODERICK, District Judge.
The plaintiffs in this action are members of the Pennsylvania Bar and the United States Attorneys or Acting United States Attorneys for the three districts of Pennsylvania. They seek relief from a state disciplinary rule that impresses an ethical obligation on them, as prosecutors, to obtain judicial approval before subpoenaing any lawyer to give evidence about his or her client to a grand jury. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the plaintiffs’ motion.
I
After the advent of…
2Cases cited100 opinions
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. ButtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
95 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Nice v. Centennial Area School DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
- United States v. LopezDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1991
- Baylson v. Disciplinary Board of Supreme Court of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Tarkett, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Petition of AlmondSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1992
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.