Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Marston's, Inc. v. Strand

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided January 21, 1977No. 12859, 12867Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGordon, Justice

(specially concurring in part and dissenting in part):

While I agree with much of the majority opinion, particularly in the first two sections, I am compelled to specially concur in the first two parts and dissent as to the third section.

I agree that a fair construction of the appropriate Arizona statutes grants the grand jury the power to issue a subpoena duces tecum for corporate records. Where I disagree with the majority is in the conditions which must be met before this power of the grand jury may be exerted: certain procedural aspects of when and how the subpoenas may be issued are…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. United States v. DionisioSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  3. Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  4. In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. In Re Jacqueline Schofield, WitnessCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
  5. Bunnell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

17 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