noting that the free flow of information assumed to exist within law firms is not assumed for government agencies
Summary of this case from Grand Jury Investigation of Targets, Matter ofNo. 78-318.
November 27, 1978.
C.A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 188 U. S. App. D. C. 56, 575 F. 2d 937.
noting that the free flow of information assumed to exist within law firms is not assumed for government agencies
Summary of this case from Grand Jury Investigation of Targets, Matter ofrefusing to grant new trial after juror expressed second thoughts about verdict
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Millernoting that the State must show good cause for trial delay
Summary of this case from State v. ShadeFull title:DALLAS POWER LIGHT CO. ET AL. v. CENTRAL POWER LIGHT CO. ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Nov 27, 1978
Mr. Knapp alternatively advocates that we adopt as the test for liability under § 1014 a "reasonableness"…
U.S. v. FieldingRelative to his hearsay objection, appellant does not argue that the requisite independent proof of the…