Legal Opinion

In Re: Grand Jury Subpoenas, Jane Roe and John Doe. Intervenor v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided May 15, 1998No. 97-3120PublishedCited by 75 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Intervenor-Appellant 1 appeals from the district court’s order compelling the testimony of two attorneys, John Doe and Jane Roe, before a federal grand jury. He argues that the district court erred by: (1) applying the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege to compel the attorneys’ testimony; (2) applying the exception too broadly and refusing to review the questions to be asked of the attorneys before the grand jury; (3) refusing to disclose or to allow rebuttal of the government’s in camera, ex parte showing that the crime-fraud exception…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. United States v. NoblesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

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

3Cited by75 opinions

  1. United States v. GrafCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
  2. United States v. RuehleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  3. In Re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
  4. In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGSCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
  5. Olson v. Accessory Controls & Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000

70 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