United States v. Joseph F. O'Neill and Frank A. Scafidi

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on similar rule for privilege for state and military secrets developed in United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1953)
• rejecting invocation of executive privilege by an attorney rather than the department head
• noting that an affidavit is required
• “It has been suggested that it is inappropriate for the privilege to be invoked by attorneys instead of by the department head.”
• “It has been suggested that it is inappropriate for the privilege to be invoked by attorneys ____”
• “Courts traditionally give wide latitude in determining relevance in the context of an administrative subpoena.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).