In the Matter of a Grand Jury Subpoena
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtAbrams, J.
We allowed the application of Howmet Corporation (Howmet) for further appellate review to consider whether an interlocutory appeal is available to Howmet from the denial of its motion to quash a subpoena directed to and served on its accounting firm, Price Waterhouse, at Price Waterhouse’s Boston office. The Appeals Court concluded that the appeal was premature. See Matter of a Grand Jury Subpoena, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 462 (1991). For the reasons stated in this opinion, we conclude that Howmet may not appeal from the order denying the motion to quash the subpoena. Price Waterhouse, if it wishes…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Cobbledick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- United States v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Perlman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Department of Mental RetardationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- Commonwealth v. FullerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996
- Waldman v. American Honda Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
- Commonwealth v. LampronMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
- In re Grand Jury SubpoenaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.