Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States Marshals Service v. Means

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided August 14, 1984No. 82-2489Published

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

  1. Flint v. HaynesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981
  2. Willard E. Johnson v. Ronald Hubbard, Lewis Lindner, Kahlil MatoukCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
  3. Ball v. WoodsDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1975
  4. United States v. Michael J. WymanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
  5. Marks v. CalendineDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1978

10 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