Supreme Court of the United States, 1967

McSurely Et Al. v. Ratliff

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 10, 1967

389 U.S. 949; 88 S. Ct. 313; 19 L. Ed. 2d 358; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 341 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler, Morton Stavis and Dan Jack Combs for applicants., Solicitor General Griswold for the United States in opposition.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely v. John K. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County Kentucky (D.C. Cir. 1985)
Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely v. John J. McClellan (D.C. Cir. 1976)
McSURELY v. RATLIFF (6th Cir. 1968)
McSurely v. Ratliff (6th Cir. 1968)
McSurely v. Ratliff (Supreme Court of the United States 1968)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

The application for emergency relief presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, granted to the extent that the seized documents shall remain in their present custody pending further proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

This order is conditioned upon the applicants’ presentation, within five days, to such District Court of any objections they may have to the validity of the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the United States Senate and shall remain in effect pending the ruling of such District Court upon any such objections as may be presented.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.