Serr v. Sullivan

Third Circuit

Serr v. Sullivan

390 F.2d 619

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1968

DocketNos. 16908-16914

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 390 F.2d 619 (Serr v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Serr v. Sullivan, 390 F.2d 619 (3d Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

1's the Director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Internal Revenue Service, empowered by the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 27 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., to conduct a special investigation of a permittee of the Division with the power to compel witnesses to appear and testify?

The District Court answered the question in the negative in the instant case in denying the Director’s petitions for enforcement of his subpoenas duces tecum directed to the appellees in the course of his investigation of the Division’s permittee, Hiram Walker Incorporated.

We are of the view that the District Court did not err in holding that the Federal Alcohol Administration Act did not in § 2(g), or any other section, expressly or impliedly empower the Director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Division to conduct special investigation of the Division’s permittees and to issue subpoenas duces tecum pursuant thereto.

The District Court’s Order denying the petitions to enforce the Director’s subpoenas will be affirmed for the reasons so well stated in Judge John W. Lord’s excellent opinion reported at 270 F.Supp. 544 (E.D.Pa.1967).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

1's the Director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Internal Revenue Service, empowered by the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 27 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., to conduct a special investigation of a permittee of the Division with the power to compel witnesses to appear and testify?

The District Court answered the question in the negative in the instant case in denying the Director’s petitions for enforcement of his subpoenas duces tecum directed to the appellees in the course of his investigation of the Division’s permittee, Hiram Walker Incorporated.

We are of the view that the District Court did not err in holding that the Federal Alcohol Administration Act did not in § 2(g), or any other section, expressly or impliedly empower the Director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Division to conduct special investigation of the Division’s permittees and to issue subpoenas duces tecum pursuant thereto.

The District Court’s Order denying the petitions to enforce the Director’s subpoenas will be affirmed for the reasons so well stated in Judge John W. Lord’s excellent opinion reported at 270 F.Supp. 544 (E.D.Pa.1967).

Harold A. Serr, Director Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division Internal Revenue Service v. Juleus J. Sullivan, Jr., Hiram Walker Incorporated, (Respondent-Intervenor in d.c.). Harold A. Serr, Director Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division Internal Revenue Service v. Francis Deimeyer, Hiram Walker Incorporated, (Respondent-Intervenor in d.c.). Harold A. Serr, Director Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division Internal Revenue Service v. James F. Curran, Hiram Walker Incorporated, (Respondent-Intervenor in d.c.). Harold A. Serr, Director Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division Internal Revenue Service v. Joseph Letizia, Hiram Walker Incorporated, (Respondent-Intervenor in d.c.). Harold A. Serr, Director Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division Internal Revenue Service v. James J. Wheatley, Jr., Hiram Walker Incorporated, (Respondent-Intervenor in d.c.). Harold A. Serr, Director Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division Internal Revenue Service v. Nicholas Dewilde, Hiram Walker Incorporated, (Respondent-Intervenor in d.c.). Harold A. Serr, Director Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division Internal Revenue Service v. Gustav Mortensen, Hiram Walker Incorporated, (Respondent-Intervenor in d.c.)

390 F.2d 619 (Third Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 F.2d 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serr-v-sullivan-ca3-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack