United States Marshals Service v. Means
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcMILLIAN, Circuit Judge
For the reasons discussed below, I concur in part and dissent in part. As a preliminary matter, I agree that we have jurisdiction of this appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Cf. United States v. Sacco, 430 F.2d 1304, 1305 (2d Cir.1970) (per cu-riam) (district court order authorizing expenditure of government funds for transcript of minutes of indigent defendant’s conspiracy trial held appealable under collateral order doctrine). I also agree that the Marshals Service cannot refuse to serve the subpoenas for the Yellow Thunder Camp litigants, as was conceded by counsel for the Marshals…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Flint v. HaynesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981
- Willard E. Johnson v. Ronald Hubbard, Lewis Lindner, Kahlil MatoukCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
- Ball v. WoodsDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1975
- United States v. Michael J. WymanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
- Marks v. CalendineDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1978
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.