In Re: Sealed Case No. 99-3091(office of Independent Counsel Contempt Proceeding)

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “not yet delivered but clearly anticipated testimony” is a “matter occurring before the grand jury”
• holding that since federal sovereign immunity is “a less than pure jurisdictional question,” the court need not resolve it “before the merits”
• holding that usual Rule 6(e) secrecy protecting identity of witnesses did not apply to the President because it was already widely known that he had testified in front of the grand jury
• holding that sovereign immunity gives rise to collateral order review
• holding mere general statements by Office of Independent Counsel prosecutors to the New York Times regarding their “belief’ on the direction of their own investigation did not constitute Rule 6(e) material
• stating that federal sovereign immunity has a “quasi-jurisdictional or ‘hybrid’ status” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).