Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Electric & Musical Industries, Limited v. The Honorable Lawrence E. Walsh, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York

249 F.2d 308

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1957-11-13
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. Petitioner, referred to as EMI, is a British corporation. A subpoena duces tecum to appear before a grand jury was served upon it by delivering a copy to a subsidiary corporation doing business in New York. EMI moved to quash the subpoena. This motion was denied by Judge Walsh by order dated June 27, 1957.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Electric & Musical Industries, Limited v. The Honorable Lawrence E. Walsh, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 9 opinions

ELECTRIC MUSICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD. v. WALSH,249 F.2d 308(2nd Cir. 1957)

ELECTRIC MUSICAL INDUSTRIES, LIMITED, Petitioner, v. The Honorable

Lawrence E. WALSH, United States District Judge for the Southern District

of New York, Respondent.

Docket 24837.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued November 4, 1957.

Decided November 13, 1957.

Page 309

Dwight, Royall, Harris, Koegel Caskey, New York City (John A. Wells, H. Allen Lochner, Justin W. D'Atri, Herbert C. Earnshaw, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.

Harry G. Sklarsky, Ralph S. Goodman, and Richard B. O'Donnell, Attorneys, Department of Justice, New York City, for respondent.

Before SWAN, HINCKS and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, referred to as EMI, is a British corporation. A subpoenaduces tecumto appear before a grand jury was served upon it by delivering a copy to a subsidiary corporation doing business in New York. EMI moved to quash the subpoena. This motion was denied by Judge Walsh by order dated June 27, 1957. The present petition seeks a writ commanding Judge Walsh to vacate his order and to refrain from asserting jurisdictioninpersonamover petitioner.

The order attacked by the petitioner is interlocutory and non-appealable. Cobbledick v. United States,309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783. As stated in 309 U.S. at page 328, 60 S.Ct. at page 542, whatever right the witness may have requires no further protection than that afforded by the district court "until the witness chooses to disobey and is committed for contempt." The All Writs Statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651, is to be used only in exceptional cases where abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power is "clear and indisputable." Bankers Life Cas. Co. v. Holland,346 U.S. 379, 383-384, 74 S.Ct. 145, 148, 98 L.Ed. 106. See also Ex parte Fahey,332 U.S. 258, 260, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041; Ward Baking Co. v. Holtzoff, 2 Cir.,164 F.2d 34; Massey-Harris-Ferguson, Ltd. v. Boyd, 6 Cir.,242 F.2d 800, 803; Comfort Equipment Co. v. Steckler, 7 Cir.,212 F.2d 371. The issue is whether the court has usurped and is enforcing a nonexistent jurisdiction over the petitioner. This is not so "clear and indisputable" as to require issuance of the writ.

Petition denied.