Loading…

In re Grand Jury Proceedings — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

In re Grand Jury Proceedings

182 L. Ed. 2d 175 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 21, 2012

Full text

In re Grand Jury Proceedings

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 9246014

Citations

182 L. Ed. 2d 175
565 U.S. 1204
132 S. Ct. 1538
80 U.S.L.W. 3476
2012 U.S. LEXIS 1654
2012 WL 538440

Cited by

Commonwealth v. Adams
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 27, 2019
United States v. John Buncich
Seventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2019
Clark v. City of Shawnee
D. Kansas · Jan 5, 2017
Stephen Dearth v. Loretta E. Lynch
D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 2015
Powell v. Tompkins
First Circuit · Apr 15, 2015
State v. DeCiccio
Supreme Court of Connecticut · Dec 23, 2014
In the Matter of Application of Jonathan R. Wheeler for a Retired officer Permit to Carry a Firearm Openly and/or Concealed in the Matter of Application of George A. Daudelin for a Retired Officer Permit to Carry a Firearm Openly and/or Concealed
New Jersey Superior Court App Division · Dec 30, 2013
In re Wheeler

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

New Jersey Superior Court App Division · Dec 30, 2013

United States v. Ahmet Keskes

Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2013

Kachalsky v. County of Westchester

Second Circuit · Nov 27, 2012

United States v. James Castleman

Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2012

Hightower v. City of Boston

First Circuit · Aug 30, 2012

Parentheticals

“There are sound reasons to decline to interpret the two statutes in tandem.... the statutes address significantly different threats. Whereas the ACCA seeks to protect society at large from a diffuse risk of injury or fatality at the hands of armed, recidivist felons, § 922(g)(9
United States v. James Castleman
“There are sound reasons to decline to interpret the two statutes in tandem. . . . the statutes address significantly different threats. Whereas the ACCA seeks to protect society at large from a diffuse risk of injury or fatality at the hands of armed, recidivist felons, § 922(g)(9
United States v. James Castleman