Alderman v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 133,133 |
| Citation | Alderman v. United States, 392 U.S. 919, 88 S.Ct. 2257, 20 L.Ed.2d 1381 (1968) |
| Parties | Willie Israel ALDERMAN et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The motion of the United States to modify our order of January 29, 1968, 390 U.S. 136, 88 S.Ct. 752, 19 L.Ed.2d 962, is restored to the calendar for reargument at the 1968 Term. Counsel are requested to include among the issues to be discussed in briefs and oral arguments the following:
(1) Should the records of the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio's place of business be subjected to in camera inspection by the trial judge to determine the necessity of compelling the Government to make disclosure of such records to petitioners, and if so to what extent?
(2) If in camera inspection is authorized or ordered, by what standards (for example, relevance and considera- tions of injury to persons or to reputations) should the trial judge determine whether the records are to be turned over to petitioners?
(3) What standards...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
U.S. v. Mouzin
... Page 682 ... 785 F.2d 682 ... 54 USLW 2533, 20 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 390 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, ... Barbara MOUZIN, Defendant/Appellant ... UNITED STATES ... ...
-
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Heard, In re
... ... I alleges Heard charged a fee contrary to the fee agreement in violation of RPC 1.5(a) which states: "A lawyer's fees shall be reasonable." The Board found Heard violated this rule by taking a ... ...
-
State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne
... ... 119] motion with this court, respondent officially occupied the office of United States District Judge for the District of Nevada. Respondent was not actively engaged in the ... ...
-
Kleiner v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta
... ... Hansell & Post, Richard Kirby and Richard M. Langway, Appellants ... No. 83-8794 ... United" States Court of Appeals, ... Eleventh Circuit ... Jan. 31, 1985 ... Page 1195 ... \xC2" ... ...