Search for: "In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum"
Results 41 - 52
of 52
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2012, 6:15 pm
Id. at 1414, citing In re Grand Jury Investigation, 399 F.3d 527 (2d Cir. 2005); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F3d 910 (8th Cir. 1997); In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263, (D.C. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 10:16 am
In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 228 F.3d 341, 348 (4th Cir. 2000) (discussing practical distinctions between search warrant and grand jury subpoena). [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 5:24 pm
” In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served upon Levy, 165 N.J. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 1:17 pm
In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords, Inc., 26 Med. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 5:02 am
., The Common Interest Rule, supra (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910 (U.S. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 5:04 am
In re Grand Jury No. 09-1, 2010 U.S. [read post]
26 May 2010, 4:56 am
See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 93 (`production may not be refused [i]f the government can demonstrate with reasonable particularity that it knows of the existence and location of subpoenaed documents’). . . . [read post]
30 Jul 2009, 11:29 pm
The government produced evidence suggesting Spadoni's awareness of the comprehensive nature of the subpoenas duces tecum typically issued in federal grand jury investigations. [read post]
26 Jul 2009, 3:03 pm
His analysis relied heavily on In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992 (United States v. [read post]
4 Jul 2007, 7:56 am
In an early computer evidence case - In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 846 F. [read post]
19 May 2007, 1:46 pm
Although Shabazz involved a subpoena duces tecum issued by a grand jury, we find the reasoning employed by that court in finding the subpoena a valid means of obtaining a saliva sample equally applicable to an LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 66 subpoena duces tecum authorized by a trial court judge. [read post]
14 Apr 2007, 3:05 pm
In the Amerindo securities fraud case, the search warrant was way overbroad ($25M in securities were at issue in a company that managed $1.2B), and all the records of the company fell within the warrant. [read post]
