MCSURELY v. RATLIFF, 389 U.S. 949 (1967)

U.S. Supreme Court

MCSURELY v. RATLIFF , 389 U.S. 949 (1967)

389 U.S. 949

Alan McSURELY et al.
v.
Thomas B. RATLIFF et al.
No. ____.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 10, 1967

Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler, Mortion Stavis and Dan Jack Combs, for applicants.

Solicitor General Griswold, for the United States.

The application for emergency relief presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, is granted to the extent that the seized documents shall remain in their present custody pending further proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. This order is conditioned upon the applicants presentation, within five days, to such District Court of any objections they may have to the validity of the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the United States Senate and shall remain in effect pending the ruling of such District Court upon any such objections as may be presented.[ McSurely v. Ratliff 389 U.S. 949 (1967) ]


U.S. Supreme Court

MCSURELY v. RATLIFF , 389 U.S. 949 (1967)

389 U.S. 949

Alan McSURELY et al.
v.
Thomas B. RATLIFF et al.
No. ____.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 10, 1967

Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler, Mortion Stavis and Dan Jack Combs, for applicants.

Solicitor General Griswold, for the United States.

The application for emergency relief presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, is granted to the extent that the seized documents shall remain in their present custody pending further proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. This order is conditioned upon the applicants presentation, within five days, to such District Court of any objections they may have to the validity of the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the United States Senate and shall remain in effect pending the ruling of such District Court upon any such objections as may be presented.[ McSurely v. Ratliff 389 U.S. 949 (1967) ]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.