Donald K. Stern v. United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the essentiality and no-other-feasible-alternative requirements would “encroach[ ] unduly upon grand jury prerogatives,” as described in R. Enterprises
• concluding that the issue of an attorney-subpoena rule’s validity was “sharply defined, and additional facts w[ould] not affect its resolution”
• concluding that the issue of an attorney-subpoena rule’s validity was “sharply defined, and additional facts w[ould] not affect its resolution”
• concluding that the issue of an attorney-subpoena rule’s validity was “sharply defined, -and additional facts w[ould] not affect its resolution”
• concluding that the issue of an attorney-subpoena rule’s validity was “sharply defined, and additional facts 26 w[ould] not affect its resolution”
• holding that materials requested with a subpoena duces tecum must be relevant, admissible and specific

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).