Legal Opinion

United States v. Juren

Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals

Decided September 9, 1982No. Nos. DC-88, DC-89PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellants challenge a judgment of the District Court, Judge Gesell, requiring compliance with subpoenas requested by the Department of Energy (DOE) and denying limited discovery on the issue of the propriety of the subpoenas. Because appellants have presented no evidence that DOE acted improperly, we affirm.

DOE has broad authority to issue subpoenas ad testificandum under Section 206 of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, 12 U.S.C. § 1904 note (1976), as *494amended, incorporated by Section 5(a)(1) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, 15 U.S.C. § 754(a)(1) (1976), as amended;…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. LaSalle National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. United States v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1980

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. International Business MacHines Corp. v. BrownDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1994
  2. United States v. Andrew E. Hill and J.E. Pinkerton, United States of America v. Dennis Juren, United States of America v. Edward W. CromeyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
  3. United States v. Thriftyman, Inc.Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Spannaus v. Federal Election CommissionDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1986
  5. United States v. RFB Petroleum, Inc.Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1983

5 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