Citation network
Bellis Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 28, 1974
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Bellis v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 417 U.S. 85 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Bellis v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 417 U.S. 85 (1974) Bellis v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WhiteSearch
-
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 483 F.2d 961 (CA3 1973). Relying on this Court's decision in United States v. WhiteSearch
-
individual from compelled production of his personal papers and effects as well as compelled oral testimony. In Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
as well as to personal documents containing more intimate information about the individual's private life. Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Couch v. UnitedSearch
-
Hill v. PhilpottSearch
-
Stuart v. UnitedSearch
-
CA5 1969). As the Court explained in United States v. WhiteSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Curcio v. UnitedSearch
-
him personally. This doctrine was first announced in a series of cases dealing with corporate records. In Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
records in response to a grand jury subpoena duces tecum directed to the corporation. A companion case, Dreier v. UnitedSearch
-
the subpoena requiring production of the corporate books was directed to the individual corporate officer. In Wheeler v. UnitedSearch
-
to corporate records even though the corporation had previously been dissolved. And Page 417 U. S. 89 Grant v. UnitedSearch
-
of the State to investigate its activities. See, e.g., Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
that the principle formulated in these decisions was limited to corporate records was put to rest in United States v. WhiteSearch
-
records of a variety of organizations over individuals' claims of Fifth Amendment privilege. See, e.g., United States v. FleischmanSearch
-
Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
McPhaul v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 364 U. S. 372 , 364 U. S. 380 (1960) (Civil Rights Congress). See also Curcio v. UnitedSearch
-
Amendment privilege is a purely personal one, most recent among them being the Court's decision last Term in Couch v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 322 U. S. 700 (citations omitted). See also Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
States, supra at 409 U. S. 327 . See also Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
United States v. SilversteinSearch
-
United States v. WernesSearch
-
F.2d 797, 800 (CA7 1946). See also United States v. OnassisSearch
-
from the White rule generally applicable to unincorporated associations is warranted. See, e.g., United States v. CoganSearch
-
petitioner's interest in partnership property is a derivative interest subject to significant limitations. See Ellis v. EllisSearch
-
privilege can be claimed by the custodian of corporate records, regardless of how small the corporation may be. Grant v. UnitedSearch
-
Fineberg v. UnitedSearch
-
Hair Industry, Ltd. v. UnitedSearch
-
George Campbell Painting Corp. v. ReidSearch
-
Md.1973). This might be a different case if it involved a small family partnership, see United States v. SlutskySearch
-
do not believe that the Court in Boyd can be said to have decided the issue presented today. See United States v. OnassisSearch
-
does not give the custodian of the corporate records any greater claim to the Fifth Amendment privilege. Wheeler v. UnitedSearch
-
Grant v. UnitedSearch
-
for a number of purposes under the Internal Revenue Code. United States v. BasyeSearch
-
case. The fact that partnerships are not viewed solely as entities is immaterial for this purpose. See United States v. WhiteSearch
-
of such an ownership interest is not, in itself, sufficient to establish a claim of privilege. See also Wheeler v. UnitedSearch
-
records were generally open to inspection by the members, 322 U.S. at 322 U. S. 699 -700, relied upon Guthrie v. HarknessSearch
-
but the Court today holds that privilege not available to Bellis. I think the case is clearly controlled by Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Bellis v. UnitedSearch
-
In Boyd v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial