Mins v. McCarthy

209 F.2d 307
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedDecember 12, 1953
Docket413_1
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 209 F.2d 307 (Mins v. McCarthy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Murphy v. Collins
312 N.E.2d 772 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1974)
Thomas W. Sanders v. John L. McClellan
463 F.2d 894 (D.C. Circuit, 1972)
James A. Dombrowski v. Colonel Thomas D. Burbank
358 F.2d 821 (D.C. Circuit, 1966)
Wheeldin v. Wheeler
373 U.S. 647 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Linus Pauling v. James O. Eastland
288 F.2d 126 (D.C. Circuit, 1960)
Fischler v. McCarthy
117 F. Supp. 643 (S.D. New York, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 F.2d 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mins-v-mccarthy-cadc-1953.