Citation network
United States Vs. Knox
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 08, 1969
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
-
U.S. 77 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. KnoxSearch
-
U.S. 77 (1969) United States v. KnoxSearch
-
cannot defend against prosecution for his fraud by challenging the validity of the requirement itself. Bryson v. UnitedSearch
-
to any federal agency. Knox moved to dismiss the indictment, asserting that this Court's decisions in Marchetti v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), and Grosso v. UnitedSearch
-
In Bryson v. UnitedSearch
-
States, ante, p. 396 U. S. 64 , decided today, we reaffirmed the holding of Dennis v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Page 396 U. S. 82 For this proposition, Knox relies on United States v. LookretisSearch
-
pressure into Knox's predicament at the time he filed the forms. At that time, this Court's decisions in United States v. KahrigerSearch
-
U. S. 22 (1953), and Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
to Knox's attempted distinction of this case from Dennis, Bryson, and their predecessors, United States v. KappSearch
-
U. S. 214 (1937), and Kay v. UnitedSearch
-
holding a fortiori compared to analogous jurisdictional holdings in such cases as Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSearch
-
Department of Employment v. UnitedSearch
-
provision not present in this case, in United States v. SissonSearch
-
submitted his forms this Court had held that such a requirement raised no self-incrimination problem. United States v. KahrigerSearch
-
Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
Grosso v. UnitedSearch
-
Six. We have no jurisdiction on this direct appeal to review the construction of the indictment. E.g., United States v. HarrissSearch
-
United States v. BordenSearch
-
Co., 308 U. S. 188 , 308 U. S. 193 (1939). But see United States v. CIOSearch
-
a motion. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs, dissenting. In this case, as in Bryson v. UnitedSearch
-
to require the filing of certain information. Id. at 396 U. S. 74 (dissenting opinion). In Marchetti v. UnitedSearch
-
Form 11-C is not unconstitutional per se. It is clear, however, that, under Marchetti, supra, and Grosso v. UnitedSearch
-
a right to refuse to provide information, nonetheless provides false information. Under the decisions in United States v. KahrigerSearch
-
U. S. 22 , and Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
and Lewis, supra, which were on the books at the time of petitioner's trial, and left untouched by Albertson v. SACBSearch
-
here, for Kahriger and Lewis were still on the books at the time Knox filed his form. And see Leary v. UnitedSearch
-
in my dissent in Bryson, ante, p. 396 U. S. 73 , and in MR. JUSTICE BLACK's separate opinion in Dennis v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. KnoxSearch
-
Bryson v. UnitedSearch
-
Marchetti v. UnitedSearch
-
and Grosso v. UnitedSearch
-
of Dennis v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. LookretisSearch
-
and Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
and Kay v. UnitedSearch
-
Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSearch
-
Grosso v. UnitedSearch
-
E.g., United States v. HarrissSearch
-
In Marchetti v. UnitedSearch
-
Leary v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial