McSurely Et Al. v. Ratliff

Supreme Court of the United States

November 10, 1967

Supreme Court of the United States · decided November 10, 1967

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“to the extent that the seized documents shall remain in custody,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely v. John J. McClellan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided November 10, 1967

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2007 · most notably Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely v. John J. McClellan (1976), McSurely v. McClellan (1985)

20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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 →

¶1

Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler, Mortion Stavis and Dan Jack Combs, for applicants.

¶2

Solicitor General Griswold, for the United States.

¶3

The application for emergency relief presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, is granted to the extent that the seized documents shall remain in their present custody pending further proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. This order is conditioned upon the applicants presentation, within five days, to such District Court of any objections they may have to the validity of the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the United States Senate and shall remain in effect pending the ruling of such District Court upon any such objections as may be presented.