GREEN

v.

KENTUCKY

Citator

Cited By

• Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. United States, 471 F.2d 507 (2d Cir. 1972)
  …acy of a doctrine of: disclose all now — appeal later. As was stated in Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F. 2d 487, 492 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d mem. by equally divided [*512] Court, 400 U.S. 348, 91 S.Ct. 479, 27 L.Ed.2d 433, reh. denied, 401 U.S. 950, 91 S.Ct. 917, 28 L.Ed.2d 234 (1971): “[Appeal after disclosure of the privileged communication is an inadequate remedy * * This principle has for generations supported countless motions to suppress evidence (alleged to have been illegally obtained)…
• Barrier Indus., Inc. v. Eckard, 584 F.2d 1074 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
  ….Rep.1315, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1974). . Barrier argues that the Committee made only a cursory investigation of the impact on Barrier, and that, contrary to Ballerina Pen Co. v. Kunzig, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 98, 433 F. 2d 1204 (1970), cert. dismissed, 401 U.S. 950, 91 S.Ct. 1186, 28 L.Ed.2d 234 (1971), it delegated to NIB the entire test for determining impact. In Ballerina Pen, this court did not reach the merits. It held that companies such as Barrier had standing to challenge allegedly illegal actions tak…