United States v. Salter, Misc. No. 363.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | ALDRICH, , McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit |
| Citation | 421 F.2d 1393 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America and Robert Gray, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners, v. Lester H. SALTER, Respondent, and Local 57, International Union of Operating Engineers, Intervenor. |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 363. |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1970 |
421 F.2d 1393 (1970)
UNITED STATES of America and Robert Gray, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners,
v.
Lester H. SALTER, Respondent, and
Local 57, International Union of Operating Engineers, Intervenor.
Misc. No. 363.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Submitted January 20, 1970.
Decided February 24, 1970.
Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, on petition for permission to appeal.
James R. McGowan, Providence, R. I., on motion to vacate order granting permission to appeal.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
ALDRICH, Chief Judge.
Respondent moves for reconsideration of our ex parte order allowing an interlocutory appeal, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), from a discovery order of the district court in an Internal Revenue subpoena matter. His principal contention is that there is not a "controlling question of law," as statutorily required. We have assumed, without deciding, in similar circumstances that there would be such a question. Goldfine v. Pastore, 1 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 519, 521. On further consideration we believe there is not. Pre-trial disclosure may indeed involve an ultimate question of law in the case, Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., N.D.Ill., 1963, 225 F.Supp. 332, aff'd 335 F.2d 203, but it may not. Here the only question is the admissibility of certain evidence on a legally relevant, Lash v. Nighosian, 1 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 185, cert. denied 362 U.S. 904, 80 S.Ct. 610, 4 L.Ed.2d 554, issue. This is not a controlling question of law. United States v. Woodbury, 9 Cir., 1959, 263 F.2d 784. We prefer the dissenting to the majority opinion in Groover, Christie & Merritt v. LoBianco, 1964, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 50, 336 F.2d 969.
The order allowing an interlocutory appeal is vacated. If the matter be thought sufficiently serious, a petition for mandamus may be filed. Cf. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Adkins, 9 Cir., 1964, 330 F.2d 595. We need hardly say that the burden here is much heavier, and a very substantial showing of prejudice must be made before we would even consider such a petition. Cf. Switzerland Cheese Ass'n, Inc. v. Horne's Market, Inc., 1 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 552, aff'd 385 U.S. 23, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katz v. Carte Blanche Corporation, No. 72-1054.
...cannot be maintained under § 1292(b) to test the propriety of a district judge's exercise of discretion. E. g., United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393, 1394 (1st Cir. 1970); Akers v. Norfolk & Western Railroad Co., 378 F.2d 78, 79 (4th Cir. 1967); J. C. Trahan Drilling Contractors, Inc. v. ......
-
U.S. v. Bear Marine Services, No. 81-3251
...of Land, 593 F.2d 884, 887 (9th Cir.1979); Nickert v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 480 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir.1973); United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393, 1394 (1st Cir.1970); United States Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 785 (9th Cir.1966) (per curiam); Molybdenum Corp. v. Kasey, 279 F.2......
-
Harrisonville Telephone v. Illinois Commerce, No. CIV. 06-73-GPM.
...discovery orders issued with respect to documents claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege); United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393, 1394 (1st Cir.1970) (the admissibility of certain evidence on a legally relevant issue is not a controlling question of law warranting allowance o......
-
Adams v. Corr. Corp.. of Am., No. 11CA1505.
...on review is not so much a matter of stating controlling [legal] principles as reviewing their application”); United States v. Salter, 421 F.2d 1393, 1394 (1st Cir.1970) (declining to entertain an interlocutory appeal under section 1292(b) because “the only question is the admissibility of ......