§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Appellant,v.New York County District Attorney's Office, Respondent. (And Another Proceeding.)

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Miller

    425 U.S. 435 (1976)   Cited 1,121 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government could obtain bank records through a subpoena

  2. Donaldson v. United States

    400 U.S. 517 (1971)   Cited 866 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Rule 81 [specifically recognizes] that a district court, by local rule or by order, may limit the application of the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] in a summons proceeding."

  3. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jerry T. O'Brien, Inc.

    467 U.S. 735 (1984)   Cited 192 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding right to confrontation not implicated during SEC investigation of securities law violations

  4. Matter of State of N.Y. v. King

    36 N.Y.2d 59 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 323 times
    In King, then-Chief Judge Breitel, writing for a unanimous Court, concluded that prohibition did not lie to preempt an egregious, prejudicial and unreviewable error of law involving a trial court grant of excessive peremptory challenges in a criminal action (id., at 61-62).

  5. Adeline v. Stinson

    206 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 152 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding Congress could not have intended courts to construe a motion for leave to appeal, which is filed under general state motions laws, as an "application" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)

  6. People v. Santos

    64 N.Y.2d 702 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 119 times

    Decided December 18, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Joseph Cohen, J. Mario Merola, District Attorney ( Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for appellant. Michele Maxian and Caesar D. Cirigliano for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The appeal should be dismissed. In May 1982, defendant was indicted for the criminal sale and possession of controlled substances. Thereafter, on application by defendant, the Supreme Court issued a subpoena duces tecum

  7. Cayuga Indian Nat. of N.Y. v. Sheriff

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4023 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 38 times
    Explaining that “terms found in Tax Law § 470 will not necessarily be accorded the same meaning when they appear in other statutory contexts,” expressly including NYIL § 6 and RPTL § 454

  8. In re Grand Jury Investigation in N.Y. County

    98 N.Y.2d 525 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 48 times
    Recognizing that the physician-patient privilege "protects patients' reasonable privacy expectations against disclosure of sensitive personal information"

  9. Matter of B.T. Prods. v. Barr

    44 N.Y.2d 226 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 92 times
    Concluding that executive task force's extra-statutory application for a search warrant was executive, not judicial

  10. Matter of Santangello v. People

    38 N.Y.2d 536 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 79 times
    Suggesting that contempt orders would be subject to appellate review

  11. Section 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records

    18 U.S.C. § 2703   Cited 1,201 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that these providers "shall disclose" such information "when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute"

  12. Section 6801 - Protection of nonpublic personal information

    15 U.S.C. § 6801   Cited 477 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Limiting information sharing by financial institutions without prior consent by customers

  13. Section 3401 - Definitions

    12 U.S.C. § 3401   Cited 466 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Striking balance between customer's right of privacy and the need of federal law enforcement agencies to obtain financial records pursuant to legitimate investigations