Citation network
Murphy Vs. Waterfront Comm'n
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 1964
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
Comm'n - 378 U.S. 52 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
or its fruits, as distinguished from independent evidence, by the Federal Government must be proscribed. Feldman v. UnitedSearch
-
against self-incrimination must be deemed fully applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
Court reversed the criminal contempt conviction on procedural grounds but, relying on this Court's decisions in Knapp v. SchweitzerSearch
-
Feldman v. UnitedSearch
-
and United States v. MurdockSearch
-
of immunity is valid only if it is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
Ullmann v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. GrunewaldSearch
-
Quinn v. UnitedSearch
-
the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable to each. Cf. Knapp v. SchweitzerSearch
-
and Feldman v. UnitedSearch
-
thus compelled by a State could be introduced into evidence in the federal courts. Our decision today in Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
The English Cases Before the Adoption of the Constitution In 1749, the Court of Exchequer decided East India Co. v. CampbellSearch
-
will subject him to the punishment of a crime . . . , and that he is punishable appears from the case of Omichund v. BarkerSearch
-
case involving separate systems of courts and law located within the same geographic area. The defendant in Brownsword v. EdwardsSearch
-
Bank Case It was against this background of English case law that this Court, in 1828, decided United States v. SalineSearch
-
Development of the English Rule In 1851, the English Court of Chancery decided King of the Two Sicilies v. WillcoxSearch
-
Sim.(N.S.) 301, 61 Eng.Rep. 116, a case which this Court, in United States v. MurdockSearch
-
King of the Two Sicilies was specifically overruled by the Court of Chancery Appeal in United States of America v. McRaeSearch
-
L.R., 3 Ch.App. 79 (1867), a case not mentioned by this Court in United States v. MurdockSearch
-
L.R., 3 Ch.App. at 83-84. The United States relied on King of the Two Sicilies v. WillcoxSearch
-
regarding self-incrimination under foreign law. See Heriz v. RieraSearch
-
Sim. 318, 59 Eng.Rep. 896. III . the Recent Supreme Court Cases in 1896, in Brown V. WalkerSearch
-
Page 378 U. S. 64 Shortly thereafter, the Court decided Jack v. KansasSearch
-
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is apparent from the fact that it was regarded, five weeks later in Ballmann v. FaginSearch
-
Id. at 200 U. S. 195 . Justice Holmes, writing for a Court which included the author of Jack v. KansasSearch
-
ccording to United States v. SalineSearch
-
Pet. 100, he was exonerated from disclosures which would have exposed him to the penalties of the state law. See Jack v. KansasSearch
-
U.S. at 200 U. S. 195 . A few months after Ballmann, the Court decided Hale v. HenkelSearch
-
federal immunity statute did not protect him from state prosecution. The Government argued, on the authority of Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
Amendment protects a federal witness from incriminating himself under state law -- was not briefed or argued in Hale v. HenkelSearch
-
necessary to the decision of the case, for the Court could have decided the relevant point on the authority of Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
the only danger to be considered is one arising within the same jurisdiction and under the same sovereignty. Queen v. BoyesSearch
-
King of the Two Sicilies v. WillcoxSearch
-
State v. MarchSearch
-
State v. ThomasSearch
-
The case of United States v. SalineSearch
-
U.S. at 201 U. S. 69 . This dictum, subsequently relied on in United States v. MurdockSearch
-
The most recent authoritative announcement of the English rule had been that made in 1867 in United States of America v. McRaeSearch
-
Supra at 378 U. S. 63 . The dictum from King of the Two Sicilies cited by the Court in Hale v. HenkelSearch
-
of incrimination, and where, if he is not, the State may demand his extradition. The second case relied on in Hale v. HenkelSearch
-
supra -- The Queen v. BoyesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial