Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Randall

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Randall, 484 U.S. 1027 (1988)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1988-01-19
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • rejecting Colonel North's constitutional challenge to subpoena and affirming contempt order
  • a plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for damages against police officer for injuries sustained in effecting arrest appropriately invokes fourth amendment protections against unreasonable use of force
  • “When the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal [pursuant to Rule 41(a)(l)(i) ] ... the dismissal takes effect automatically: the trial judge has no role to play at all.”
  • “Courts have almost never found that an ongoing investigation imposes a sufficient hardship on the person investigated to warrant judicial review prior to his or her indictment.”
  • authorization under section 515(a) requires specific direction, not a “letter of authority”
  • statement during the providence inquiry that prior to the killing victim hit the accused in the head with a toaster was not substantial indication accused acted from adequate provocation which might reduce murder to manslaughter

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Randall. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
147 opinions

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.