Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fisher Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 21, 1976

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

60 entries 7 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Dionisio US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  2. Schmerber Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1966
  3. Burdeau Vs. Mcdowell US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1921
  4. California Bankers Assn. Vs. Shultz US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1974
  5. United States Vs. Nobles US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1975
  6. United States Vs. Lefkowitz US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1932
    Distinguished
  7. Hale Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
  8. Fisher v. United
    Search
  9. States - 425 U.S. 391 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Fisher v. United
    Search
  10. States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) Fisher v. United
    Search
  11. against himself, and the fact that the attorneys are agents of the taxpayers does not change this result. Couch v. United
    Search
  12. for the reasons set forth in 425 U. S. infra we are convinced that, under our decision in Couch v. United
    Search
  13. exerted on the person asserting the privilege, Perlman v. United
    Search
  14. Johnson v. United
    Search
  15. Couch v. United
    Search
  16. States, supra at 409 U. S. 328 , 409 U. S. 336 . See also Holt v. United
    Search
  17. U. S. 21 , 416 U. S. 55 (1974). In Couch v. United
    Search
  18. was also the taxpayer's agent, and, in this respect, reflected a longstanding view. In Page 425 U. S. 398 Hale v. Henkel
    Search
  19. privilege against compelled testimonial self-incrimination is that of protecting personal privacy. See, e.g., Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  20. Tehan v. United
    Search
  21. Davis v. United
    Search
  22. of an accused may be overheard and used in evidence if they are not compelled at the time they were uttered, Katz v. United
    Search
  23. Osborn v. United
    Search
  24. and Berger v. New
    Search
  25. Hoffa v. United
    Search
  26. and that disclosure of private information may be compelled if immunity removes the risk of incrimination. Kastigar v. United
    Search
  27. Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling
    Search
  28. the First Amendment, see NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  29. Baird v. Koerner
    Search
  30. Modern Woodmen of America v. Watkins
    Search
  31. Prichard v. United
    Search
  32. Schwimmer v. United
    Search
  33. United States v. Goldfarb
    Search
  34. following transfer by the client in order Page 425 U. S. 404 to obtain more informed legal advice. Grant v. United
    Search
  35. Falsone v. United
    Search
  36. Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Reed
    Search
  37. Andrews v. Mississippi
    Search
  38. Palatini v. Sarian
    Search
  39. Pearson v. Yoder
    Search
  40. Sowers v. Olwell
    Search
  41. United States v. Judson
    Search
  42. Colton v. United
    Search
  43. for the Fifth Circuit in No. 74-611 is at odds with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Beattie
    Search
  44. prevents compelled production of documents over objection that such production might incriminate stems from Boyd v. United
    Search
  45. violated the Fourth Amendment, and that the Fifth Amendment rendered these seized materials inadmissible. Gouled v. United
    Search
  46. Agnello v. United
    Search
  47. Gouled v. United
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Fisher v. United
    Search
  49. Perlman v. United
    Search
  50. Holt v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial