TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mins v. McCarthy

Mins v. McCarthy, 209 F.2d 307 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 12, 1953
Docket
No. 413_1
Citations
209 F.2d 307
Cited by 8 Original from court

Opinion

209 F.2d 307 93 U.S.App.D.C. 220

MINS et al. v. McCARTHY.

Misc. 413.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Dec. 12, 1953. Decided Dec. 12, 1953.

[ 93 U.S.App.D.C. 221 ] Mr. Victor Rabinowitz, New York City, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of New York, pro hac vice, for petitioners. Messrs. David Rein and Joseph Forer, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for petitioners.

Mr. Thomas W. LaVenia, New York City, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of New York pro hac vice, for respondent. Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U.S. Atty., and Frank H. Strickler, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for respondent.

Before PRETTYMAN, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on petitioners' motion for leave to file an applicattion for stay and on respondent's answer and motion to deny the motion for leave to file the application for stay or in the alternative to deny the application for stay, and was argued by counsel and duly considered by the Court.

2

The Court is of the opinion that where a committee of the Congress has issued a subpoena ad testificandum to a witness to appear at a hearing, without defining the questions to be asked, the judicial branch of the Government should not enjoin in advance the holding of the hearing or suspend the subpoena. The rights of witnesses in respect of any question actually asked at the hearing are subject to determination in appropriate proceedings thereafter.

3

Accordingly, it is order by the Court that petitioners' motion for leave to file an application for stay be, and it is hereby, denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1954: 11960: 21963: 11966: 11969: 11972: 11974: 119542026peak 1960 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wheeldin v. Wheeler373 U.S. 647 (1963)
  2. Linus Pauling v. James O. Eastland288 F.2d 126 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
  3. Thomas W. Sanders v. John L. McClellan463 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
  4. Fischler v. McCarthy117 F. Supp. 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1954)
  5. James A. Dombrowski v. Colonel Thomas D. Burbank358 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
  6. Allen M. Krebs and Walter D. Teague, III v. John M. Ashbrook407 F.2d 306 (D.C. Cir. 1969)

Most recent

  1. Murphy v. Collins312 N.E.2d 772 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)
  2. Thomas W. Sanders v. John L. McClellan463 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
  3. Allen M. Krebs and Walter D. Teague, III v. John M. Ashbrook407 F.2d 306 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
  4. James A. Dombrowski v. Colonel Thomas D. Burbank358 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
  5. Wheeldin v. Wheeler373 U.S. 647 (1963)
  6. Linus Pauling v. James O. Eastland288 F.2d 126 (D.C. Cir. 1960)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
D'Ambrosio v. Pincock, 210 F.2d 23 (D.C. Cir. 1953) 0

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list