IN RE MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPŒNAS, ETC.


30 F.Supp. 527 (1939)

In re MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPŒNAS DUCES TECUM RETURNABLE BEFORE THE SECOND GRAND JURY.

District Court, S. D. California, Central Division.

August 29, 1939.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

M. S. Huberman, Joseph E. Brill, Henry McClernan, Robert H. Marquis, and Laurence P. Sherfy, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for the United States.

Oscar Lawler, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Felix T. Smith, of San Francisco, Cal. (Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, of San Francisco, Cal., and Lawler, Felix & Hall, of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for G. M. Foster and Standard Oil Co. of California.

L. R. Martineau, Jr., and Warren Stratton, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for Cleve B. Bonner and Richfield Oil Corporation and Rio Grande Oil, Inc.

F. F. Thomas, Jr., and Wm. E. Wright, both of San Francisco, Cal., Harold A. Black, of Los Angeles, Cal., and McCutchen, Olney, Mannon & Greene, of San Francisco, Cal., for A. R. Bradley and Shell Oil Co., Inc.

Charles C. Stanley, J. A. McNair, and Hubert T. Morrow, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for E. B. Liles and The Texas Co.

Theodore J. Roche, of San Francisco, Cal., and Martin J. Weil, of Los Angeles, Cal., for D. W. Woods and General Petroleum Corporation of California.

Paul M. Gregg and L. A. Gibbons, both of Los Angeles, Cal., and Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, of San Francisco, Cal., for W. R. Edwards and Union Oil Co. of California.

Robert M. Searls, William F. Kiessig, and William I. Robinson, all of San Francisco, Cal., for J. P. Edwards and Tide Water Associated Oil Co.

Salisbury, Robinson & Himrod, of Los Angeles, Cal., for Stuart M. Salisbury and Gilmore Oil Co.

Fred H. Schauer, Harrison Ryon, and Schauer, Ryon & McMahon, all of Santa Barbara, Cal., for G. C. Howell and Seaside Oil Co.

Harold Judson and Williamson, Hoge & Judson, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for H. J. March and Signal Oil Co.


McCORMICK, District Judge.

As I view the motions before the court, in the light of applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court and of other appellate federal courts, the sole litigable issue at this time is whether or not, under the movants' chargeable knowledge of the scope of investigations by the Second Grand Jury, the documents called for are indicated to the corporate officers served with reasonable specification...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases