Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Dennis Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 20, 1966

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

77 entries 4 linked 73 unlinked
Show
  1. Haas Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1910
  2. Brown Vs. Elliott US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1912
  3. American Communications Assn. Vs. Douds US Supreme Court · May 08, 1950
    Distinguished
  4. United States Vs. Kapp US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1937
  5. Dennis v. United
    Search
  6. States - 384 U.S. 855 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Dennis v. United
    Search
  7. States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966) Dennis v. United
    Search
  8. the entire course of petitioners' alleged conduct constituted a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Bridges v. United
    Search
  9. indicted for conspiracy by means of falsehood and deceit to circumvent the law which they here seek to challenge. Kay v. United
    Search
  10. counsel may have access to relevant portions of grand jury testimony of a trial witness. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United
    Search
  11. Whether, in the comparative light of American Communications Ass'n. v. Douds
    Search
  12. U. S. 382 , and United States v. Brown
    Search
  13. in a criminal conspiracy charge, that its wide net may ensnare the innocent as well as the culpable. See Krulewitch v. United
    Search
  14. United States v. Bufalino
    Search
  15. U. S. 462 , 216 U. S. 479 , quoted in United States v. Johnson
    Search
  16. Lutwak v. United
    Search
  17. Glasser v. United
    Search
  18. Hammerschmidt v. United
    Search
  19. of any union whose officers have filed non-Communist affidavits -- without regard to the veracity thereof. Leedom v. International
    Search
  20. Union, 352 U. S. 145 , and Meat Cutters v. Labor
    Search
  21. It is their contention that Bridges v. United
    Search
  22. unavailable to the prosecution. Cf. Glasser v. United
    Search
  23. United States v. Manton
    Search
  24. h) of the Taft-Hartley Act is unconstitutional. In particular, they rely upon United States v. Brown
    Search
  25. They contend that Brown in effect overruled Page 384 U. S. 865 American Communications Assn. v. Douds
    Search
  26. and deceit to circumvent the law which they now seek to challenge. This is the teaching of the cases. In Kay v. United
    Search
  27. U.S. at 303 U. S. 6 . See also United States v. Kapp
    Search
  28. the trial at which the false testimony was elicited was upon an indictment stating no federal offense ( United States v. Williams
    Search
  29. that the testimony was before a grand jury alleged to have been tainted by governmental misconduct ( United States v. Remington
    Search
  30. or that the defendant testified without having been advised of his constitutional rights ( United States v. Winter
    Search
  31. had been shown. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United
    Search
  32. United States v. Procter
    Search
  33. to the Government in preparation of its case. Procter & Gamble, supra. And, in Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United
    Search
  34. In United States v. Socony-Vacuum
    Search
  35. ed.), responding to this Court's decision in Jencks v. United
    Search
  36. risk of wrongful attribution of responsibility to one or more of the multiple defendants. See, e.g., United States v. Bufalino
    Search
  37. ed.). See note 9 infra. In United States v. Brown
    Search
  38. The opinion of the District Court sustaining the indictment is reported in United States v. Pezzati
    Search
  39. F.Supp. 787 (D.C.D.Colo.1958). On this issue, the Court of Appeals affirmed. United States v. Dennis
    Search
  40. See United States v. Johnson
    Search
  41. See the legislative materials set out in Leedom v. International
    Search
  42. a conspiracy, and because at least one overt act is alleged to fall within the applicable period. See Grunewald v. United
    Search
  43. Fiswick v. United
    Search
  44. Petitioners also rely upon Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  45. in Douds on November 8, 1948 and certiorari was granted in the companion case, United Steelworkers of America v. Labor
    Search
  46. h) affidavit. Leedom v. International
    Search
  47. United States v. Remington
    Search
  48. United States v. Peace
    Search
  49. United States v. Willis
    Search
  50. United States v. Williams
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial