Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 2/11/1946

Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling

Citations

  • 327 U.S. 186
  • 66 S. Ct. 494
  • 90 L. Ed. 614
  • 1946 U.S. LEXIS 3089
  • 166 A.L.R. 531

How courts have described this case

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

  • “relevancy and adequacy or excess in the breadth of the subpoena are matters variable in relation to the nature, purposes and scope of the inquiry”
  • investigation may go forward unless “irrelevant to any lawful purpose or . unauthorized by law”
  • judicial supervision protects against agency demand for relevant information “if in any respect it is unreasonable or overreaches the authority Congress has given”
  • administrative subpoena can only be enforced if the subject of the investigation is authorized by statute
  • Agencies are generally granted broad deference in determining the scope of their investigative authority.
  • the administrative subpoena duces tecum of corporate records was authorized by law and relevant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jackson, Murphy, Rutledge

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

804 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.