Citation network
Maness Vs. Meyers
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 15, 1975
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. 449 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Maness v. MeyersSearch
-
U.S. 449 (1975) Maness v. MeyersSearch
-
Hoffman v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 341 U. S. 479 , 341 U. S. 486 . United States v. BlueSearch
-
that the Fifth Amendment applied even in the injunctive action. Indeed, he noted that the leading case of Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect. Page 419 U. S. 459 Howat v. KansasSearch
-
United States v. MineSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 293 (1947). This principle is especially applicable to orders issued during trial. E.g., Illinois v. AllenSearch
-
with the concomitant possibility of an adjudication of contempt if his claims are rejected on appeal. Cobbledick v. UnitedSearch
-
Alexander v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BlueSearch
-
DiBella v. UnitedSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
against self-incrimination is involved. The privilege has ancient roots, see, e.g., Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action. Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution. Hoffman v. UnitedSearch
-
evidence. Laying to one side possible waiver problems that might arise if the witness followed that course, cf. Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
Our views as to the effectiveness of a later objection or motion to suppress do not conflict with United States v. BlueSearch
-
the City Attorney's contention that the claim is not available in a civil proceeding. We disagree. In Kastigar v. UnitedSearch
-
Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
United States v. SalineSearch
-
Gardner v. BroderickSearch
-
U. S. 467 There is a crucial distinction between citing a recalcitrant witness for contempt, United States v. RyanSearch
-
Sacher v. UnitedSearch
-
in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
in that event, a witness may be compelled to testify. Kastigar v. UnitedSearch
-
client that he may assert the Fifth Amendment privilege. Reliance seems to us misplaced on the statement in Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
frivolous or for purposes of delay, and such instances would present far different issues from those here. See Cole v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CioffiSearch
-
Kastigar v. UnitedSearch
-
it, and that it is therefore compelled self-incrimination barred from use by the Fifth Amendment. In Garrity v. NewSearch
-
Id. at 385 U. S. 500 . Lefkowitz v. TurleySearch
-
is nevertheless compelled to answer, his answers are inadmissible against him in a later criminal prosecution. Bram v. UnitedSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
to the subject matter of his answers, neither his answer nor its fruits could later be used against him, Kastigar v. UnitedSearch
-
agree that it was error to hold the attorney in contempt for advising his client not to answer. Cf. Lefkowitz v. TurleySearch
-
Sanitation Men v. SanitationSearch
-
client would be given another opportunity to answer, having in mind the controlling constitutional principles. Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Maness v. MeyersSearch
-
of Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
E.g., Illinois v. AllenSearch
-
Cobbledick v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial