47 Cited authorities

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C
542 U.S. 367 (2004) Cited 1,295 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the writ is appropriate only when the petitioner has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires" (quoting Kerr , 426 U.S. at 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119 )
United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (1974) Cited 4,089 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding appeal of District Court's denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254
Herbert v. Lando
441 U.S. 153 (1979) Cited 1,587 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the relevancy of deposing a defendant publisher in a defamation case about his conduct and mental state could "hardly be doubted" even if the defendant was unlikely to admit to liable conduct in the deposition
Hickman v. Taylor
329 U.S. 495 (1947) Cited 6,496 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”
Branzburg v. Hayes
408 U.S. 665 (1972) Cited 1,807 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that government need not “demonstrate some ‘compelling need’ for a newsman's testimony”
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services
433 U.S. 425 (1977) Cited 1,093 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder because former President Nixon "constituted a legitimate class of one"
Morrison v. Olson
487 U.S. 654 (1988) Cited 576 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding an independent counsel to be an inferior officer
Hoffman v. United States
341 U.S. 479 (1951) Cited 1,700 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant could not be compelled to testify about the whereabouts of a fugitive witness where defendant’s answers would have "forge[d] links in a chain of facts imperiling [defendant] with conviction of a federal crime"
Loving v. United States
517 U.S. 748 (1996) Cited 228 times
Holding that "the same limitations on delegation do not apply where the entity exercising the delegated authority itself possesses independent authority over the subject matter," such as delegations to the Executive Branch of matters that traditionally fall within executive discretion, like commander-in-chief power
Hannah v. Larche
363 U.S. 420 (1960) Cited 658 times
Holding that the Sixth Amendment "is specifically limited to 'criminal prosecutions'"
Rule 408 - Compromise Offers and Negotiations
Fed. R. Evid. 408 Cited 4,263 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, United States House of Representatives v. Lynch

47 Cited authorities

Holding that the writ is appropriate only when the petitioner has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires" (quoting Kerr , 426 U.S. at 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119 )

Holding appeal of District Court's denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254

Holding that the relevancy of deposing a defendant publisher in a defamation case about his conduct and mental state could "hardly be doubted" even if the defendant was unlikely to admit to liable conduct in the deposition

Holding that government need not “demonstrate some ‘compelling need’ for a newsman's testimony”

Holding that the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder because former President Nixon "constituted a legitimate class of one"

Holding an independent counsel to be an inferior officer

Holding that a defendant could not be compelled to testify about the whereabouts of a fugitive witness where defendant’s answers would have "forge[d] links in a chain of facts imperiling [defendant] with conviction of a federal crime"

Holding that the Sixth Amendment "is specifically limited to 'criminal prosecutions'"

Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)