Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gojack Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 13, 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

43 entries 3 linked 40 unlinked
Show
  1. McgraIn Vs. Daugherty US Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1927
  2. Marshall Vs. Gordon US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1917
  3. United States Vs. Rumely US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1953
  4. Gojack v. United
    Search
  5. States - 384 U.S. 702 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Gojack v. United
    Search
  6. States, 384 U.S. 702 (1966) Gojack v. United
    Search
  7. as a result of his refusals to answer. In Russell v. United
    Search
  8. Yellin v. United
    Search
  9. MR. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is a sequel to this Court's decision in Russell v. United
    Search
  10. as a result of his refusals to answer. He was convicted. In Russell v. United
    Search
  11. to conduct the investigation. Petitioner here urges that we reconsider this Court's decision in Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  12. U.S. at 369 U. S. 756 -757, 369 U. S. 758 -759. See also Wilkinson v. United
    Search
  13. Deutch v. United
    Search
  14. Watkins v. United
    Search
  15. Sinclair v. United
    Search
  16. States, 279 U. S. 263 , 279 U. S. 295 -296. In United States v. Rumely
    Search
  17. U.S. at 345 U. S. 44 . Cf. Sinclair v. United
    Search
  18. States, 279 U. S. 263 , 279 U. S. 295 -298. This Court made it clear in Watkins v. United
    Search
  19. of the Committee. When a committee rule relates to a matter of such importance, it must be strictly observed. Yellin v. United
    Search
  20. without metes and bounds, without statement or description of the subject committed to the Subcommittee. United States v. Seeger
    Search
  21. F.2d 478 (C.A.2d Cir. 1962). Cf. United States v. Lamont
    Search
  22. F.2d at 487. See also United States v. Kamin
    Search
  23. before which the alleged contempt occurred must be clear and certain. As Chief Judge Clark stated in United States v. Lamont
    Search
  24. terms of a delegation with respect to a particular, specific subject matter. As Judge Weinfeld stated in United States v. Lamont
    Search
  25. amounted to an unconstitutional encroachment on the judicial power for reasons stated in his dissent in Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  26. The leading case on the requirement of legislative purpose is Kilbourn v. Thompson
    Search
  27. Quinn v. United
    Search
  28. Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  29. Wilkinson v. United
    Search
  30. Watkins v. United
    Search
  31. Russell v. United
    Search
  32. United States v. Lamont
    Search
  33. to investigate merely for the sake of exposure or punishment, particularly in the First Amendment area. In Watkins v. United
    Search
  34. See Cong.Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess., particularly at pages 406, 409-410, 427, 435 (1857). See also Watkins v. United
    Search
  35. U.S. Supreme Court Gojack v. United
    Search
  36. In Russell v. United
    Search
  37. In United States v. Rumely
    Search
  38. Cf. Sinclair v. United
    Search
  39. the Subcommittee. United States v. Seeger
    Search
  40. Cf. United States v. Lamont
    Search
  41. United States v. Kamin
    Search
  42. Kilbourn v. Thompson
    Search
  43. In Watkins v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial