Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

209 F.2d 307

Docket Misc. 413.

Mins v. McCarthy

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Dec. 12, 1953.

Decided Dec. 12, 1953.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1953-12-12

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““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.””

quoted by 3 later decisions, including National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Committee on Offenses Against the Administration of Justice, Fischler v. McCarthy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1953-12-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1974

12 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

130195319601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. 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.

¶2Mr. 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.

¶3Before PRETTYMAN, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on petitioners’ motion for leave to file an application 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.

¶6The 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.

¶7Accordingly, it is ordered by the Court that petitioners’ motion for leave to file an application for stay be, and it is hereby, denied.

/209/f2d/307 · .json · Public domain