Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

353 F.2d 512

Docket No. 8317.

Austin v. United States

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1962-04-06

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““This order is not intended to indicate that the District Court may not, in its discretion, hear the application for injunction prior to indictment * * * ””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 256 F. Supp. 793 - Parrish v. United States

Relies on Di Bella v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1962-04-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1985

9 federal appellate · 2 district ·

90196219701980decided

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 →

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

It appearing to this Court that the Supreme Court of the United States, in DiBella v. United States and United States v. Koenig, on March 19, 1962, 369 U.S. 121, 82 S.Ct. 654, 7 L.Ed.2d 614, held interlocutory and unappealable an order of a District Court entered in a proceeding commenced prior to indictment for the purpose of suppression of evidence; and

¶2

It further appearing to this Court, by reason of the subsequent decisions of the United States Supreme Court above mentioned, that it was without appellate jurisdiction to review the order of the District Court declining to enjoin presentation of evidence to a grand jury;

¶3

Now, therefore, it is here ordered that the mandate of this Court issued on december 22, 1961 be, and the same hereby is, recalled, the judgment entered on November 21, 1961 is set aside, and the appeal is dismissed because the order of the District Court is interlocutory in nature and not appealable in advance of final judgment. This order is not intended to indicate that the District Court may not, in its discretion, hear the application for injunction prior to indictment, nor do we hereby intimate any opinion upon the merits of said application.

/353/f2d/512 · .json · Public domain