MCSURELY ET AL.
v.
RATLIFF ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court granted a motion to stay a District Court order requiring the return of documents seized in Kentucky, pending appeal to the Supreme Court, conditional upon the appellant filing the record and jurisdictional statement within fourteen days.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mo-
tion for relief presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, granted, and the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky of December 13, 1967, stayed to the extent that the seized documents shall remain in custody of the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Pike County, Kentucky, pending perfection and disposition of the appeal by this Court.
This stay is conditioned upon filing of the record, the jurisdictional statement and the docketing of the case within fourteen days from this date and should such appeal be docketed within that time, the Solicitor General is requested to respond to such jurisdictional statement within fourteen days thereafter. In the event the appeal is so docketed, this stay is to remain in effect pending this Court’s ruling on the jurisdictional aspect of the case. Should the Court summarily affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal, this stay shall automatically expire. In the event the Court notes probable jurisdiction or postpones consideration of the jurisdiction until the hearing on the merits, this stay is to remain in effect pending issuance of the judgment of this Court.
Issuance of this stay in no way represents an adjudication that this Court has jurisdiction of an appeal from the order of the United States District Court hereby stayed.
[For earlier order herein, see 389 U. S. 949.]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McSURELY v. McCLELLAN, 553 F.2d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1976)…er 1967. We have quoted from this testimony only as a further, cumulative demonstration that the three-judge court never meant its custody order to be a secrecy order. . Stip. 13, App. 21. . See 389 U.S. 949, 88 S.Ct. 313, 19 L.Ed.2d 358 (1967). . 390 U.S. 914, 88 S.Ct. 845, 19 L.Ed.2d 974 (1968). . 390 U.S. 412, 88 S.Ct. 1112, 19 L.Ed.2d 1272 (1968). . “After the decision of the [three-judge] District Court and before the time for appeal had expired, subpoenas duces tecum ordering production of certain…
-
McSURELY v. Ratliff, 398 F.2d 817 (6th Cir. 1968)…sdiction. McSurely et al. v. Ratliff, 390 U.S. 412, 88 S.Ct. 1112, 19 L.Ed.2d 1272. The stay order previously granted by the Supreme Court was continued in effect pending an appeal to this Court. Two other orders of the Supreme Court are reported at 390 U.S. 914, 88 S.Ct. 845, 19 L.Ed.2d 974 and 389 U.S. 949, 88 S.Ct. 313, 19 L.Ed.2d 358. The single issue now before this Court is whether the District Court erred in refusing to return to their owners documents which were seized in aid of a prosecution under…
-
McSURELY v. McCLELLAN, 753 F.2d 88 (D.C. Cir. 1985)…had. December 13, 1967: The district court again ordered compliance with the subpoenas. January 29, 1968: The Supreme Court granted another stay, reserving for future determination whether it had jurisdiction of the appeal from the district court. 390 U.S. 914 (1968). March 18, 1968: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, but continued the stay so that the McSure-lys could seek review in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 390 U.S. 412 (1968). July 29, 1968: The Court o…
Authorities Cited
- McSurely v. Ratliff, 389 U.S. 949 (U.S. 1967)