{"count":38222,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xMi4wNDI1OCZzPTE1NzI3OTEmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0xMC0wNiZwPTI%3D&q=PRELIMINARY+STATEMENTS+INTERFERENCE+PROCEEDINGS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2315021/in-re-grand-jury-proceedings/","attorney":"John P. McAdams, Esq., Lee Vilker, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Providence, RI, for United States., Robert G. Flanders, Esq., Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Jeffrey S. Brenner, Esq., David A. Vicinanzo, Esq., Nixon Peabody LLP, Jeffrey B. Pine, Esq., Jeffrey B. Pine, Esq. P.C., John A. MacFadyen, III, Esq., MacFadyen, Gescheidt & O’Brien, Anthony M. Traini, Esq., Providence, RI, Attorneys for Interested Parties.","caseName":"In Re Grand Jury Proceedings","caseNameFull":"In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS","citation":["697 F. Supp. 2d 262","2010 WL 1038206"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":2315021,"court":"District Court, D. Rhode Island","court_citation_string":"D.R.I.","court_id":"rid","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-03-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"MC 09-84","docket_id":2182514,"judge":"William E. Smith","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:33:41.070914Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:29:10.261427Z","score":{"bm25":27.898228}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3028,"cites":[112730,118021,134724,628057,730852,771010,772200,792167],"download_url":null,"id":2315021,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:52:33.247593Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:04:18.781530Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b124fe2176e083a8823930fb6eee44c16f2c085c","snippet":"\n697 F.Supp.2d 262 (2010)\nIn re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.\nMC No. 09-84.\nUnited States District Court, D. Rhode Island.\nMarch 19, 2010.\n*263 John P. McAdams, Esq., Lee Vilker, Esq., U.S. Attorney's Office, Providence, RI, for United States.\nRobert G. Flanders, Esq., Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Jeffrey S. Brenner, Esq., David A. ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2315021],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2334512/in-re-the-protective-proceedings-of-tammy-j/","attorney":"Ted Stepovich, Law Office of Ted Stepo-vich, Fairbanks, for Appellants Theresa H. and Jeff J. (limited appearance for oral argument)., Elizabeth Russo, Assistant Public Advocate, and Rachel Levitt, Public Advocate, Anchorage, for Amicus Curiae Public Guardian, Office of Public Advocacy., Meg K. Allison Zaletel, Leslie A. Jachning, and Mark Regan, Anchorage, for Amicus Cu-riage Disability Law Center of Alaska., Laura C. Bottger, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and John J. Burns, Attorney General, Juneau, for Amicus Curiae State of Alaska.","caseName":"In Re the Protective Proceedings of Tammy J.","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Protective Proceedings of TAMMY J.","citation":["270 P.3d 805","2012 Alas. LEXIS 39","2012 WL 676369"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":2334512,"court":"Alaska Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Alaska","court_id":"alaska","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-03-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S-13698","docket_id":1867488,"judge":"Carpeneti, Fabe, Winfree, Christen, Stowers","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:44:12.194697Z","date_created":"2014-12-12T15:09:25.441918Z","score":{"bm25":25.087334}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100233,100694,108530,109670,112699,112786,118144,130160,185343,784491,790970,1087668,1174888,1345549,1673157,2572594,2600491,2606428,2633001,2637846,2638045,2639298,3486733],"download_url":null,"id":2334512,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:58:06.017988Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:09:01.099710Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2d98d5e54e92af7b9f519b7a36276542ad36b986","snippet":"\n270 P.3d 805 (2012)\nIn the Matter of the Protective Proceedings of TAMMY J.\nNo. S-13698.\nSupreme Court of Alaska.\nMarch 2, 2012.\n*807 Ted Stepovich, Law Office of Ted Stepovich, Fairbanks, for Appellants Theresa H. and Jeff J. (limited appearance for oral argument).\nElizabeth Russo, Assistant Public Advocate, and Rachel Levitt, Pu","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[613,3681,3687,3693,3694],"panel_names":["Morgan Christen","Walter L. Carpeneti","Dana Anderson Fabe","Craig F. Stowers","Daniel Edward Winfree"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2334512],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2512799/in-re-special-proceedings/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Special Proceedings","caseNameFull":"In Re SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS","citation":["291 F. Supp. 2d 44","32 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1075","2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17329","2003 WL 22284124"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":2512799,"court":"District Court, D. Rhode Island","court_citation_string":"D.R.I.","court_id":"rid","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2003-10-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Misc. 01-47T","docket_id":2379737,"judge":"Torres","lexisCite":"2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17329","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:27:01.787989Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:44:42.794163Z","score":{"bm25":24.912321}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3244,"cites":[96424,108611,109998,110226,111185,198247,199963,670558,696254,759727],"download_url":null,"id":2512799,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:21:49.065353Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T10:04:18.903596Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7791f4173ec9687ca43050d7b9c5f2d60caee2f4","snippet":"\n291 F.Supp.2d 44 (2003)\nIn re SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS.\nNo. Misc. 01-47T.\nUnited States District Court, D. Rhode Island.\nOctober 2, 2003.\n\n\n*45 *46 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER\n\nTORRES, Chief Judge.\n\nIntroduction\nMarc DeSisto, a special prosecutor appointed by t","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2512799],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2093937/in-re-direct-criminal-contempt-proceedings/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Direct Criminal Contempt Proceedings","caseNameFull":"","citation":["864 N.E.2d 425","2007 WL 1166045"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":2093937,"court":"Indiana Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ind. Ct. App.","court_id":"indctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-04-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"51A01-0607-CV-274","docket_id":1922407,"judge":"Baker","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T08:47:33.497658Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T20:31:39.011740Z","score":{"bm25":24.15842}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":7254,"cites":[117872,2093253],"download_url":null,"id":2093937,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T17:09:33.373287Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:18:13.764465Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"678a2350a1b9dc2894e32e244fcfd3aab955e210","snippet":"\n864 N.E.2d 425 (2007)\nIn the Matter of DIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS\nJohn R. Hunt, Appellant-Petitioner,\nv.\nMartin County Circuit Court, Appellee-Respondent.\nNo. 51A01-0607-CV-274.\nCourt of Appeals of Indiana.\nApril 20, 2007.\n*426 Fremont O. Pickett, Shoals, IN, Attorney for Appellant.\nSteve Carter, Attorney Gen","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2093937],"source":"L","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1466665/in-re-grand-jury-proceedings-198gj20/","attorney":"Tom L. Newton, Jr., Frank J. Ford, Allen, Stein & Durbin, P.C., San Antonio, for appellant., Charles S. Frigerio, Law Office of Charles S. Frigerio, P.C., Dawn L. Carmo-dy, Law Office of Dawn L. Carmody, San Antonio, John Cornyn, Atty. Gen., Daniel E. Maeso, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Ronald L. Sutton, Dist. Atty., Junction, for appel-lee.","caseName":"In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS 198.GJ.20","caseNameFull":"In Re Grand Jury Proceedings 198. GJ. 20.","citation":["129 S.W.3d 140","2003 WL 21395541"],"citeCount":15,"cluster_id":1466665,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-San Antonio","court_id":"txctapp4","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2003-07-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"04-02-00402-CV","docket_id":2011445,"judge":"Karen Angelini","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T07:55:49.517220Z","date_created":"2015-09-09T18:07:57.546847Z","score":{"bm25":20.829868}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8299,"cites":[369230,1393429,1975604,1985450,2099709,2149988,2411412,2431354,2436853,5060570,8708330,9432529,9525661,9553471,9660595,9668176,9677194],"download_url":null,"id":1466665,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T07:55:49.515677Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:22:05.857885Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c632a8b800ab72b169f264f8f1b204d25b462967","snippet":"\n129 S.W.3d 140 (2003)\nIn re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS 198.GJ.20.\nNo. 04-02-00402-CV.\nCourt of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.\nJune 18, 2003.\nRehearing Overruled July 16, 2003.\n*141 Tom L. Newton, Jr., Frank J. Ford, Allen, Stein & Durbin, P.C., San Antonio, for appellant.\nCharles S. Frigerio, Law Office of Charles","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1466665,9635169,9635170],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/732430/in-re-grand-jury-proceedings/","attorney":"Gordon C. Rhea, Esq., (argued), (Alkon, Rhea & Hart), for Appellant, James A. Hurd, Jr., Esq., Azekah E. Jennings, Esq., (Office of United States Attorney), David S. Kris, Esq., (argued), (United States Department of Justice), for Appellee, Charles M. Oberly, III, Esq., Kathleen M. Jennings, Esq., (Oberly, Jennings & Drexler), Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq., (argued), (Brandt & Dalton), for Appellant John Doe 1. George H. Seitz, III, Esq., (argued), (Pricket, Jones, Elliott, Kristol, & Schnee), for Appellant John Doe 2, Gregory M. Sleet, Esq., (United States Attorney), Colm F. Connolly, Esq., (argued), (Assistant U.S. Attorney), for Appellee in Appeal Nos. 96-7529/7530.","caseName":"In Re Grand Jury Proceedings","caseNameFull":"In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Impounded); In Re Grand Jury — John Doe I, John Doe, II","citation":["103 F.3d 1140","35 V.I. 516","45 Fed. R. Serv. 1161","1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 312","1997 WL 6328"],"citeCount":57,"cluster_id":732430,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","court_citation_string":"3rd Cir.","court_id":"ca3","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1997-01-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"95-7354, 96-7529/96-7530","docket_id":396166,"judge":"Garth, Mansmann","lexisCite":"1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 312","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T23:50:31.317849Z","date_created":"2015-10-14T01:14:22.503884Z","score":{"bm25":19.002974}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9489891,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:54:40.741319Z","date_created":"2023-08-05T13:27:06.036783Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nGARTH, Judge\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nThree appeals presenting the same critical issue are before us. One appeal originated in the District Court of the Virgin Islands at docket number 95-7354. The other two appeals pertaining to the same Delaware defendant originated in the District Court of Delaware at docket numbers 96-7529 and 96-7530.1\nWe scheduled","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[96427,99162,102181,103311,103933,104788,106107,108611,108650,109101,110212,110226,110374,110627,111119,112308,112346,112730,118042,314074,323879,338950,342593,342693,377120,389968,390032,392235,395310,406000,406431,418712,423502,423522,439317,449253,453381,455999,503159,551291,628062,661718,1116952,1159927,1162561,1285763,1443408,1460371,1460404,1572791,1630053,1694210,1700197,1817269,1900814,1901123,1941141,2005297,2046350,2076734,2099719,2105791,2144600,2149989,2169922,2185631,2377580,2404379],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/103/103.F3d.1140.95-7354.96-7530.96-7529.html","id":732430,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:45:06.057629Z","date_created":"2012-04-17T16:44:55Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0f9548f16e2fd1f6cddc2b304b91bf14d372a9c0","snippet":"103 F.3d 1140\n    45 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1161\n    In re GRAND JURY.\n    Nos. 95-7354, 96-7529 and 96-7530.\n    United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.\n    Argued in No. 95-7354 April 16, 1996.Argued in Nos. 96-7529and 96-7530 Oct. 7, 1996.Reargued in No. 95-7354 Oct. 7, 1996.Decided Jan. 9, 1997.\n    \n      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[732430,9489891,9489892],"source":"RU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1193841/in-re-disciplinary-proceedings-against-huddleston/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Huddleston","caseNameFull":"","citation":["974 P.2d 325"],"citeCount":29,"cluster_id":1193841,"court":"Washington Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Wash.","court_id":"wash","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1999-04-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"18942-1","docket_id":1538512,"judge":"Durham","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T02:20:08.964669Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T17:30:36.440657Z","score":{"bm25":18.928774}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":5966,"cites":[242545,288627,294834,384579,1145323,1159207,1163398,1164431,1198866,1249649,1287835,1288344,1414234,1442281,2608777],"download_url":null,"id":1193841,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T05:39:03.569648Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T04:51:59.191043Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"80590ca40cb67b8de8a7c5f5f26c64276166efef","snippet":"\n974 P.2d 325 (1999)\n137 Wash.2d 560\nIn the Matter of the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST John C. HUDDLESTON, An Attorney at Law.\nNo. 18942-1.\nSupreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nArgued November 17, 1998.\nDecided April 8, 1999.\n*327 Washington State Bar Association, Maria S. Regimbal, Kathryn Ma","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1193841],"source":"L","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1453073/in-re-grand-jury-proceedings/","attorney":"Roberto Buso Aboy, San Juan, P.R., for petitioner., Ricardo R. Pesquera, Asst. U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, P.R., for respondent.","caseName":"In Re Grand Jury Proceedings","caseNameFull":"In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS","citation":["700 F. Supp. 626","1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13466","1988 WL 128275"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":1453073,"court":"District Court, D. Puerto Rico","court_citation_string":"D.P.R.","court_id":"prd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1988-10-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Misc. 88-110 GG","docket_id":1012984,"judge":"Gierbolini","lexisCite":"1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13466","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T03:57:41.420055Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T13:46:21.715028Z","score":{"bm25":16.723043}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[102436,105355,105848,105923,105978,108611,108629,108709,108898,110251,111004,285846,398883,447909],"download_url":null,"id":1453073,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T08:35:42.783819Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:14:25.107905Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f760aa441b6014bf2b3954ff0c475a0626b8ced9","snippet":"\n700 F.Supp. 626 (1988)\nIn re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.\nMisc. No. 88-110 GG.\nUnited States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.\nOctober 17, 1988.\nRoberto Busó Aboy, San Juan, P.R., for petitioner.\nRicardo R. Pesquera, Asst. U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, P.R., for respondent.\n\nOPINION AND ORDER\nGIERBOLINI, District Judge.\nOn October 5, 1988 petitioner, F","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1453073],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2185583/in-re-judicial-disciplinary-proceedings-against-breitenbach/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Breitenbach","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST the Honorable Jerold W. BREITENBACH, Circuit Judge, Kenosha County","citation":["482 N.W.2d 52","167 Wis. 2d 102","1992 Wisc. LEXIS 177"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":2185583,"court":"Wisconsin Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Wis.","court_id":"wis","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1992-04-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"90-1896-J","docket_id":2052511,"judge":"Per Curiam","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T09:34:58.465109Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T21:32:44.533674Z","score":{"bm25":16.150433}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1640233],"download_url":null,"id":2185583,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:03:18.141327Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:33:25.819485Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"603a7e867524c1f91b0add0b54c99145764ec1d4","snippet":"\n167 Wis.2d 102 (1992)\n482 N.W.2d 52\nIN the MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST the Honorable Jerold W. BREITENBACH, Circuit Judge, Kenosha County.\nNo. 90-1896-J.\nSupreme Court of Wisconsin.\nFiled April 2, 1992.\n*104 PER CURIAM.\nJudicial disciplinary proceeding; former judge suspended from","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2185583],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8924331/in-re-grand-jury-proceedings/","attorney":"Howland W. Abramson (argued), Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant., Peter F. Vaira, U. S. Atty., Walter S. Batty, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert L. Hickok (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee, U. S. A., Carmen P. Belefonte (argued), Kassab, Cherry, Curran & Archbold, Media, Pa., for appellee, George Neagle.","caseName":"In re Grand Jury Proceedings","caseNameFull":"In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS (Wright II), Honorable Robert A. Wright, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the Thirty-Second Judicial District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania","citation":["654 F.2d 268"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":8924331,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","court_citation_string":"3rd Cir.","court_id":"ca3","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1981-06-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 80-2585","docket_id":66190543,"judge":"Adams, Fisher, Garth","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T22:28:06.937174Z","date_created":"2022-11-27T04:05:46.654700Z","score":{"bm25":13.477381}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8913649,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:02:45.336342Z","date_created":"2022-11-27T04:05:46.662149Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nADAMS, Circuit Judge.\nThis controversy, which is before us for the second time, centers on the district court’s innovative procedure for deciding whether confidential federal grand jury materials should be disclosed to a state criminal defendant. Finding that the district judge had the power to implement the contested procedure, and that his decision to adopt it did not constitute an ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8913649],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4342084/the-attorney-generals-authority-in-certifying-whether-a-state-has/","attorney":"","caseName":"The Attorney General's Authority in Certifying Whether a State Has Satisfied the Requirements for Appointment of Competent Counsel for Purposes of Capital Conviction Review Proceedings","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4342084,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-12-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":4574867,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:23:45.256496Z","date_created":"2017-01-27T22:39:11.041950Z","score":{"bm25":12.919986}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[11182,111221,767560,1485463,2092567,2354068,2355693,2967240,6943056,6955915,7009783,9413221,9428892,9429592,9430879,9431645,9433048,9433642,9433790,9434193,9434507,9435364,9499981],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2009/12/31/capital-counsel-memo_0.pdf","id":4119345,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2009/12/16/the_attorney_generals_authority_in_certifying_whether_a_state_has.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:11:45.785658Z","date_created":"2017-01-27T22:39:11.049316Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5753cfcd880be4959895d04716f28f93f43bdcd8","snippet":"  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S AUTHORITY IN CERTIFYING WHETHER\n   A STATE HAS SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPOINTMENT\n            OF COMPETENT COUNSEL FOR PURPOSES OF\n           CAPITAL CONVICTION REVIEW PROCEEDINGS\n\n        Statutory provisions originally enacted as section 107(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death\nPenalty Act of 1996, and now codified as chapter 154 of title 28, may be construed to permit the Attorney\nGeneral to exercise his delegated authority to define the term “competent","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4119345],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8529721/helms-v-metro-life-ins-co-in-re-omalley/","attorney":"*635Gordon E. Gouveia, Fox Rothschild LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff., Rachel Beattie, Jordan A. Lejcar, Warren S. Von Schleicher, Smith, Von Schleicher Associates, Chicago, IL, Patrick C Keeley, Piccione, Keeley & Associates, Ltd., David F. Rolewick, Aaron T. Troy, Rolewick & Gutzke PC, Wheaton, IL, for Defendants.","caseName":"Helms v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. (In re O'Malley)","caseNameFull":"IN RE: Michael K. O'MALLEY, Debtor. Brenda P. Helms, not individually, but solely as the chapter 7 trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Michael K. O'Malley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Michael K. O'Malley, Tracy Zellmer, and Tamo, LLC","citation":["601 B.R. 629"],"citeCount":11,"cluster_id":8529721,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois","court_citation_string":"Bankr. N.D. Ill.","court_id":"ilnb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-05-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Bankruptcy Case No. 13-10864; Adversary Proceeding No. 16-00552","docket_id":65791403,"judge":"Baer","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:52:08.865136Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:51:43.942379Z","score":{"bm25":12.757088}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8502208,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T17:07:33.106037Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:51:43.955507Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJanet S. Baer, United States Bankruptcy Judge\nBrenda P. Helms, as chapter 7 trustee (the \"Trustee\") of the bankruptcy estate of *636Michael K. O'Malley (\"O'Malley\"), filed a six-count adversary complaint against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (\"MetLife\"), O'Malley, Tracy Zellmer (\"Zellmer\"), and TAMO, LLC (\"TAMO\"). In the complaint, the T","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8502208],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8528477/crowder-v-wilbur-in-re-wilbur/","attorney":"Ian M. Falcone, The Falcone Law Firm, P.C., Marietta, GA, for Plaintiffs., Karen King, King & King Law LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.","caseName":"Crowder v. Wilbur (In re Wilbur)","caseNameFull":"IN RE: Phillip Russell WILBUR, Jr., Debtor. Landa Crowder, Stanley Crowder, and Amy Riley v. Phillip Russell Wilbur, Jr.","citation":["574 B.R. 782"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":8528477,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia","court_citation_string":"Bankr. N.D. Ga.","court_id":"ganb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-07-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CASE NO. 16-67262-BEM; ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NO. 17-5044-BEM","docket_id":65790158,"judge":"Ellis, Monro","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:51:23.364184Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:48:43.773050Z","score":{"bm25":12.7378025}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8500964,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:54:17.954650Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:48:43.779826Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS\nBarbara Ellis-Monro, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge\nThis matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Answer and Motion to Dismiss, styled as “Motion for Default Judgment Defendant’s [sic] Answer to Complaint Objecting to Discharge and Motion for Summary Judgment,” (the “Motion to Dismiss” or “Motion”) [Doc. 8] and Plaintiffs’ Response ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8500964],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/484937/in-re-grand-jury-proceedings-appeal-of-hilton-fernandez-diamante-in-re/","attorney":"Judith Berkan, Santurce, P.R., for appellants., H. Manuel Hernandez, San Juan, P.R., with whom Daniel F. Lopez-Romo, U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, P.R., and Roberto Moreno, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Juan, P.R., were on brief, for U.S.","caseName":"In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Hilton Fernandez Diamante. In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Elias Samuel Castro Ramos","caseNameFull":"In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. Appeal of Hilton FERNANDEZ DIAMANTE. in Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. Appeal of Elias Samuel Castro RAMOS","citation":["814 F.2d 61"],"citeCount":42,"cluster_id":484937,"court":"Court of Appeals for the First Circuit","court_citation_string":"1st Cir.","court_id":"ca1","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1987-03-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"86-1129, 86-1169","docket_id":974139,"judge":"Campbell, Bownes, Torruella","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T21:49:27.687135Z","date_created":"2015-10-22T17:52:00.524145Z","score":{"bm25":12.713455}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[99162,106730,109338,283079,301729,352726,358726,369324,377120,381356,402337,427688,454794,1398514,1461961,1462191,1515226,1580110,1753897,2143991,2146111,2148417,2281282,8783508,8904242,8912273,9012279,9418026,9419364,9419755,9421635,9426375,9429319,9462726,9466791,9470677,9473914,9475209],"download_url":null,"id":9475939,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:49:41.606319Z","date_created":"2023-08-05T05:43:10.311337Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nBOWNES, Circuit Judge.\nHilton Fernandez Diamante (Fernandez) and Elias Samuel Castro Ramos (Castro) appeal from the denial of their motions in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico challenging the manner in which the prosecutors have been conducting a federal grand jury investigation. The two substantive issues in this appeal are: (1) whether a letter sent to recipients of a grand jury subpoena d","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[99162,106730,109338,301729,352726,358726,369324,377120,381356,402337,427688,454794,1398514,1461961,1462191,1515226,1580110,1753897,2143991,2146111,2148417,2281282,8783508,8879951,8904242,8912273,9012279,9418026,9419364,9419755,9421635,9426375,9429319,9462726,9466791,9470677,9473914,9475209,9475423,9475939],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/814/814.F2d.61.86-1169.86-1129.html","id":484937,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:07:30.015435Z","date_created":"2011-08-23T09:48:53Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"46e4095eb0f7ccc19b95683806590c9fd8869d90","snippet":"814 F.2d 61\n    In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.Appeal of Hilton FERNANDEZ DIAMANTE.In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.Appeal of Elias Samuel Castro RAMOS.\n    Nos. 86-1129, 86-1169.\n    United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit.\n    Heard Oct. 10, 1986.Decided March 25, 1987.\n    \n      Judith Berkan, Santurce, P.R., for appellants.<","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[484937,9475939,9475940],"source":"RU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8915442/in-re-grand-jury-proceedings/","attorney":"David W. Marston, U. S. Atty., Walter S. Batty, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Appellate Section, Gregory T. Magarity, Frank H. Sherman, Asst. U. S. Attys., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee, U. S., Nicholas J. Nastasi, Philadelphia, Pa., for Henry J. Cianfrani, appellant in 77-1970 and 77-2051/2/3., John Rogers Carroll, Thomas Colas Carroll, Philadelphia, Pa., for Thomas J. Kal-man, appellant in 77-1971.","caseName":"In re Grand Jury Proceedings","caseNameFull":"In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, Subpoenas Duces Tecum \"A\", \"B\", \"C\", \"D\", and \"E\", and Subpoenas of Helen Sills and Nancy Doyle. Appeal of Henry J. CIANFRANI, Intervenor in 77-1970, 77-2051/2/3. Appeal of Thomas J. KALMAN, in No. 77-1971","citation":["563 F.2d 577","2 Fed. R. Serv. 1081"],"citeCount":36,"cluster_id":8915442,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","court_citation_string":"3rd Cir.","court_id":"ca3","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1977-09-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Nos. 77-1970, 77-1971, 77-2051, 77-2052 and 77-2053","docket_id":66181649,"judge":"Gibbons, Weis","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T22:23:51.920683Z","date_created":"2022-11-27T01:30:27.662756Z","score":{"bm25":12.628074}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8903586,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T19:31:52.951731Z","date_created":"2022-11-27T01:30:27.669933Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nWEIS, Circuit Judge.\nThe search for truth in criminal proceedings and the need for independence of state legislators clash in this appeal stemming from a grand jury investigation. We conclude that the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution does not shield a state legislator in a federal criminal action, but a limited evidentiary privilege grounded in the common law histor","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8903586,8903587],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8528540/in-play-membership-golf-inc-v-billy-casper-golf-llc-in-re-in-play/","attorney":"Antonio L. Converse, Patrick D, Vellone, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff., Greg Hearing, Thomas B. Quinn, Denver, CO, for Defendant.","caseName":"In Play Membership Golf, Inc. v. Billy Casper Golf, LLC (In re In Play Membership Golf, Inc.)","caseNameFull":"IN RE: IN PLAY MEMBERSHIP GOLF, INC., Debtor. In Play Membership Golf, Inc. v. Billy Casper Golf, LLC","citation":["576 B.R. 15"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":8528540,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado","court_citation_string":"Bankr.D. Colo.","court_id":"cob","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-09-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Bankruptcy Case No. 13-14422 EEB; Adversary Proceeding No. 15-1191 EEB","docket_id":65790221,"judge":"Brown","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:51:26.632041Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:48:51.691161Z","score":{"bm25":12.608649}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8501027,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:54:22.362098Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:48:51.697380Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER DISMISSING ADVERSARY PROCEEDING FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION\nElizabeth E. Brown, Bankruptcy Judge\nTHIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ supplemental briefs filed at the Court’s request to assist the Court in its determination of whether it has jurisdiction over this case. At the outset of this litigation, the Debtor’s largest secured creditor, Mile High Banks (the “Bank”) was a defend","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8501027],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7331320/in-re-navy-chaplaincy/","attorney":"*28Matthew J.B. Lawrence, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Navy Chaplaincy, JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge *29More than a decade ago, these consolidated cases were brought by a group of Protestant U.S. Navy chaplains who allege that the Navy has discriminated against them in various ways because of their faith. Though plaintiffs' consolidated complaint runs over one hundred pages and asserts eighteen separate counts, prior rulings in this case have whittled their claims down to nine, six of which are currently before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Each of these claims relates to the so-called \"selection boards\" that the Navy uses to select chaplains (and all other commissioned officers) for promotion and, in some cases, for involuntary retirement., Plaintiffs' primary claim is that, until 2002, the Navy maintained an unconstitutional policy of placing at least one Roman Catholic chaplain on every selection board, which resulted in Catholic chaplains being promoted at a disproportionately high rate compared to other religious groups. Plaintiffs also challenge a host of other allegedly unconstitutional selection-board policies and procedures-some of which, plaintiffs claim, continue to this day. Finally, plaintiffs challenge a statute that privileges selection-board deliberations from disclosure in litigation, arguing that it is unconstitutional as applied to their case because it denies them access to information that they need to prove their constitutional claims. To redress these wrongs, plaintiffs-each of whom was either passed over for promotion or selected for early retirement by a board that was allegedly tainted by one or more of the challenged procedures-seek an order directing the Navy to reinstate them to active duty, if necessary, and to convene new, properly constituted selection boards to reconsider the personnel actions taken against them. Alternatively, plaintiffs ask the Court to permit them to take further discovery to prove their claims., To a considerable extent, the result in this case is dictated by prior rulings of both the D.C. Circuit and this Court. The legal standards applicable to plaintiffs' challenges to the selection-board policies and procedures were laid out several years ago by the D.C. Circuit in this very litigation. Consequently, there is little left to do here but to apply those standards to the evidence adduced by the parties on summary judgment-which, as explained below, does not even come close to showing the degree of discrimination required for plaintiffs' challenges to succeed. Likewise, this Court has already twice considered and twice rejected plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the statutory privilege for selection-board proceedings, and plaintiffs offer no persuasive reason to reach a different conclusion this time around. Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment as to these claims will therefore be denied, and the Navy's will be granted. Finally, because plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to conduct discovery previously in this litigation, and because they would be unlikely to prevail on their claims even if they were permitted to take further discovery, plaintiffs' requests for additional discovery will be denied., Plaintiffs are thirty-nine Protestant chaplains who belong to denominations that the Navy categorizes as \"non-liturgical\" because their services do not follow a set liturgy (that is, a prescribed order of worship). Id. at 1172. Protestant denominations falling within this category include Baptism, Evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism; conversely, \"liturgical\" denominations include Methodism, Lutheranism, and Presbyterianism. Id. At all times relevant to this litigation, for administrative purposes, the Navy treated liturgical Protestants, non-liturgical Protestants, and Roman Catholics as three distinct \"faith group categories\"; a fourth and final category, \"Special Worship,\" included all other Christian denominations, as well as all other religions. Id. The Navy used these faith group categories to document service members' religious needs and to ensure that those needs were being met., Although chaplains' religious role within the Navy is unique, chaplains progress through the Navy's promotion system in the same manner as all other commissioned officers. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 624 (describing the promotion process); id. § 638 (providing for the involuntary \"selective early retirement\" of an officer who has been considered but not selected for a promotion either a certain number of times or after a certain number of years, depending on the officer's rank). To be promoted to the next rank, a chaplain must be recommended by a \"selection board.\" 10 U.S.C. § 611(a). That board must consist of at least five officers, all of whom must rank higher than the candidates under consideration, id. § 612(a)(1), and at least one of whom must be a chaplain, id. § 612(a)(2)(A); see In re England, 375 F.3d at 1172 (\"[I]f a selection board is considering chaplains, at least one board member must be a chaplain.\"). The same requirements apply to a board convened to select chaplains for early retirement. See 10 U.S.C. § 611(b)., The plaintiffs in this consolidated litigation are a group of non-liturgical Protestant chaplains who claim that they were either denied a promotion or selected for early retirement because of their religious affiliation. See generally Consolidated Compl. (\"Compl.\") [ECF No. 134] add. A. Over its nearly twenty-year life span, plaintiffs' case has been before the D.C. Circuit at least five times, seen the retirement of two district judges, and generated over a thousand pages of briefing on dispositive motions. Its history is nothing if not complex., The first two of the three cases consolidated in this action were filed in this district in 1999 and 2000, see Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. Danzig (\"CFGC\"), Civil Action No. 99-2945 (D.D.C. filed Nov. 5, 1999); Adair v. Winter, Civil Action No. 00-566 (D.D.C. filed Mar. 17, 2000), and later consolidated before Judge Ricardo Urbina. The plaintiffs-many of whom remain in the litigation to this day-asserted constitutional claims related to the hiring, promotion, and retention of chaplains, see Adair v. England, 183 F.Supp.2d 31, 55-63 (D.D.C. 2002) ; the treatment of non-liturgical Protestants within the chaplaincy, see id. at 63-67 ; and individual alleged instances of constructive discharge and retaliation, see id. at 67. The Navy moved to dismiss their claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, but Judge Urbina denied the motion as to most claims. See id. at 68. Judge Urbina later granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, see Adair v. England, 209 F.R.D. 5, 13 (D.D.C. 2002), and the cases proceeded to discovery, see Aug. 27, 2002 Order, CFGC, ECF No. 119; Aug. 27, 2002 Order, Adair, ECF No. 72., Soon thereafter, a dispute arose over plaintiffs' request to depose members of prior chaplain selection boards. At the time, a federal statute provided that, \"[e]xcept as authorized or required by this section, proceedings of a selection board convened under [ 10 U.S.C. §] 611(a)\"-that is, selection boards for promotions but not for early retirement-\"may not be disclosed to any person not a member of the board.\" 10 U.S.C. § 618(f). Nevertheless, Judge Urbina granted the plaintiffs' motion, concluding that § 618(f) did not apply in litigation because it \"does not contain specific language barring discovery\" and \"because of the circuit's emphasis on providing litigants full access to relevant information.\", The Navy appealed, and the D.C. Circuit reversed, explaining that \"[d]isclosure of selection board proceedings in civil discovery would certainly undermine, if not totally frustrate, the purpose of Section 618(f).\" In re England, 375 F.3d at 1178. The D.C. Circuit also rejected plaintiffs' reliance on the Supreme Court's statement in Webster v. Doe that \"where Congress intends to preclude judicial review of constitutional claims its intent to do so must be clear,\" 486 U.S. 592, 603, 108 S.Ct. 2047, 100 L.Ed.2d 632 (1988), explaining that here, plaintiffs \"remain free to litigate their discrimination claims and to support them with other evidence.\" Id. at 1180 n. 2. Hence, the court concluded, § 618(f)\"applies to block civil discovery of promotion selection board proceedings in civil litigation.\" Id. at 1181 (emphasis added). But because the statutory language referred only to \" section 611 (a)\" of Title 10, which governs the convening of promotion boards, while the convening of selective early retirement boards is governed by § 611 (b) of that title, the D.C. Circuit remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether § 618(f) applied to the proceedings of selective early retirement boards. Id. at 1181-82., On remand, plaintiffs argued not only that § 618(f) was inapplicable to selective early retirement boards, as the D.C. Circuit had suggested, but also that it was unconstitutional as applied to their discovery requests for promotion board proceedings, because it deprived them of evidence that they needed to prove their constitutional claims. Judge Urbina agreed with plaintiffs as to the first point, see Adair v. Winter, 451 F.Supp.2d 202, 206 (D.D.C. 2006) (allowing discovery of selective early retirement board proceedings), but not the second, see Adair v. Winter, 451 F.Supp.2d 210, 212 (D.D.C. 2006) (barring discovery of promotion board proceedings). In his view, § 618(f) was constitutional as applied to plaintiffs both because promotion board proceedings were not essential to their claims, see id. at 217-19, and because in any case there was no \"constitutional right of access to evidence essential to establishing constitutional claims,\" id. at 220., 10 U.S.C. § 613a(b). The statute also specifies that it \"applies to all selection boards ... regardless of the date on which the board was convened.\" Id. § 613a(c). Following the enactment of § 613a, Judge Urbina granted the Navy's motion for reconsideration of his decision allowing discovery of selection-board proceedings, concluding that those materials were no longer discoverable. See In re Navy Chaplaincy, 512 F.Supp.2d 58, 61 (D.D.C. 2007)., In 2011, while briefing on the dispositive motions was still pending, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Navy from implementing three selection-board procedures: \"(1) staffing the seven-member selection boards with two chaplains, (2) enabling members to keep their votes secret ..., and (3) allowing the Chief of Chaplains or his deputy to serve as the selection board president.\" In re Navy Chaplaincy, 738 F.3d 425, 427 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ; see Pls.' Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [ECF No. 95]. Judge Urbina denied plaintiffs' motion in January 2012, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing and that, in any case, they were unlikely to succeed on the *34merits of their claims. See Jan. 30, 2012 Mem. Op. [ECF No. 108] at 8-12. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed Judge Urbina's determination that plaintiffs lacked standing and remanded for clarification as to whether the district court viewed the insufficiency of the chaplains' claims to be \"legal or factual.\" See In re Navy Chaplaincy, 697 F.3d 1171, 1173, 1180 (D.C. Cir. 2012). On remand, the district court (now Judge Gladys Kessler, see infra ) again denied plaintiffs' motion, explaining that plaintiffs' constitutional claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits because plaintiffs had provided no \"evidence demonstrating that Defendants intentionally discriminated against them.\" In re Navy Chaplaincy, 928 F.Supp.2d 26, 33-37 (D.D.C. 2013). This time, the D.C. Circuit affirmed. See In re Navy Chaplaincy, 738 F.3d at 428., In early 2012, while plaintiffs' appeal of the preliminary injunction ruling was still pending, Judge Urbina resolved one of the dispositive motions that was then pending in the underlying case, see In re Navy Chaplaincy, 850 F.Supp.2d 86, 105-117 (D.D.C. 2012) (granting in part and denying in part the Navy's 2008 motion to dismiss on exhaustion, standing, and mootness grounds and for failure to state a claim), and retired soon thereafter. The case was then reassigned to Judge Gladys Kessler.","caseName":"In re Navy Chaplaincy","caseNameFull":"IN RE: NAVY CHAPLAINCY","citation":["323 F. Supp. 3d 25"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":7331320,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-08-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Misc. Case No. 07-269 (JDB)","docket_id":64319804,"judge":"Kessler, Proceedings","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:39:37.952422Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T05:48:53.686822Z","score":{"bm25":12.524087}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7249238,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:28:23.714773Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T05:48:53.703663Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nC. Proceedings Before Judge Kessler\nIn July 2012, Judge Kessler entered a comprehensive case management order. See Case Mgmt. Order # 1. Among other things, the order: (1) directed plaintiffs to file a new, consolidated complaint, see id.","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7249238],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/373802/in-re-grand-jury-proceedings-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States","caseNameFull":"In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States of America, Appellant-Cross v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc., Ed A. Isakson and Clover Realty Company, Appellees-Cross","citation":["613 F.2d 501","1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19947"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":373802,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","court_citation_string":"5th Cir.","court_id":"ca5","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1980-03-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"79-3442","docket_id":549608,"judge":"","lexisCite":"1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19947","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T05:54:57.802283Z","date_created":"2014-12-21T21:54:26.516512Z","score":{"bm25":12.3787}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[102475,105703,108831,109241,109729,261935,358211,363079],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/613/613.F2d.501.79-3442.html","id":373802,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T09:50:11.847728Z","date_created":"2011-08-23T09:12:29Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6a48053fc8e8b96e0b480d03039786a39612a94d","snippet":"613 F.2d 501\n    1980-1 Trade Cases   63,226\n    In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.UNITED STATES of America, Appellant-Cross Appellee,v.NORTHSIDE REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., Ed A. Isakson and CloverRealty Company, Appellees-Cross Appellants.\n    No. 79-3442.\n    United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.\n    March 4, 1980.\n    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[373802],"source":"R","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/751685/dale-r-schulze-and-jon-a-sherman-v-david-t-green-henry-bolanos-robert/","attorney":"Keith V. Rockey, Dressier, Rockey, Milna-mow & Katz, Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued, for appellants. With him on the brief were John P. Milnamow and Stephen D. Geimer., Drew M. Wintringham, Chadbourne & Parke, LLP, New York City, argued, for appellees. With him on the brief was Eric J. Lobenfeld. Of counsel on the brief were Rocco S. Bárrese, Dilworth & Bárrese, Un-iondale, NY, and John C. Andres and Neil D. Gershon, United States Surgical Corporation, Norwalk, CT.","caseName":"Dale R. Schulze and Jon A. Sherman v. David T. Green, Henry Bolanos, Robert J. Geiste, Wayne P. Young, Stephen W. Gerry and Frank M. Rende, III","caseNameFull":"Dale R. SCHULZE and Jon A. Sherman, Appellants, v. David T. GREEN, Henry Bolanos, Robert J. Geiste, Wayne P. Young, Stephen W. Gerry and Frank M. Rende, III, Appellees","citation":["136 F.3d 786","45 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1769","1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 2087","1998 WL 57221"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":751685,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cir.","court_id":"cafc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1998-02-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"97-1219; Interference 103,319","docket_id":665495,"judge":"Michel, Lourie, Rader","lexisCite":"1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 2087","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-12-05T20:27:25.127230Z","date_created":"2014-12-22T16:26:54.293473Z","score":{"bm25":12.25562}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[529846,569398,748429],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/136/136.F3d.786.97-1219.103.319.html","id":751685,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T12:31:24.101015Z","date_created":"2012-04-18T01:14:33Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1d724ed9b3682a25e93bc11d019d57754b555281","snippet":"\n\n\n  MICHEL, Circuit Judge.\n \n\n  Dale R. Schulze and Jon A. Sherman (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office’s (the “PTO’s”) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the “Board”) entering final judgment against them in an interference on the ground of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f).\n  \n   Green v. Schulze,\n  \n  Interference N","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[751685],"source":"RU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1572791/in-re-grand-jury-proceedings-witness-agosto/","attorney":"Dominic P. Gentile, David Z. Chesnoff, Las Vegas, Nev., for witness Charles Agosto., Lawrence R. Leavitt, Sp. Atty., Las Vegas Strike Force, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Lamond R. Mills, U.S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for the Government.","caseName":"In Re Grand Jury Proceedings Witness Agosto","caseNameFull":"In Re Grand Jury Proceedings Witness: Mary AGOSTO, Et Al.","citation":["553 F. Supp. 1298","12 Fed. R. Serv. 639","1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20278"],"citeCount":34,"cluster_id":1572791,"court":"District Court, D. Nevada","court_citation_string":"D. Nev.","court_id":"nvd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1983-01-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CV-LV-82-9, HEC","docket_id":1644182,"judge":"Claiborne","lexisCite":"1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20278","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T04:43:35.686620Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T21:48:34.785947Z","score":{"bm25":12.04258}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":624,"cites":[91573,96230,100233,101320,102189,103694,103933,104943,107082,107480,107898,108489,108497,108530,108713,108898,108913,109529,109670,109679,109684,109768,110212,389968,2105791,2609970,5823618,6200266],"download_url":null,"id":1572791,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T09:56:13.506884Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:49:03.040207Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"58ef703feec64846e593dfb77bdfafb47772daf0","snippet":"\n553 F.Supp. 1298 (1983)\nIn re Grand Jury Proceedings Witness: Mary AGOSTO, et al.\nNo. CV-LV-82-9, HEC.\nUnited States District Court, D. Nevada.\nJanuary 4, 1983.\n*1299 Dominic P. Gentile, David Z. Chesnoff, Las Vegas, Nev., for witness Charles Agosto.\nLawrence R. Leavitt, Sp. Atty., Las Vegas Strike Force, U.S. Dept. of Justice, La","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1572791],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}