Daniel J. Edwards v. United States Department of Justice

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine continued to apply to suits removed under § 1442
• holding that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine continued to apply to suits removed under § 1442
• stating that a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied, but must be “unequivocally expressed”
• holding that agency’s response to subpoena under Touhy “is subject to judicial review” and “has to be an APA claim directed at the agency, the United States, or the employee thereof” and “must be in federal court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702”
• affirming the quashing of a state subpoena because the state court “had no jurisdiction to compel the delivery of [Department of Justice] information”
• quashing criminal defendant’s state-court subpoena served upon Department of Justice based upon sovereign immunity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).