Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Braswell Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 22, 1988

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

62 entries 2 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Doe US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1984
  2. Hale Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
    Distinguished
  3. Braswell v. United
    Search
  4. States - 487 U.S. 99 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Braswell v. United
    Search
  5. States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988) Braswell v. United
    Search
  6. Government compulsion of that act. If petitioner had conducted his business as a sole proprietorship, United States v. Doe
    Search
  7. than the individual's alter ego. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, citing Bellis v. United
    Search
  8. the corporation may be. The Court of Appeals declared that Bellis retained vitality following United States v. Doe
    Search
  9. Fisher v. United
    Search
  10. the taxpayer. It also would indicate the taxpayer's belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Curcio v. United
    Search
  11. Eight years later, in United States v. Doe
    Search
  12. distinguished pedigree. Page 487 U. S. 105 The rule was first articulated by the Court in the case of Hale v. Henkel
    Search
  13. Id. at 201 U. S. 75 . The ruling in Hale represented a limitation on the prior holding in Boyd v. United
    Search
  14. subpoena for corporate records by invoking his personal privilege -- Hale had been protected by immunity. In Wilson v. United
    Search
  15. Id. at 221 U. S. 385 . In a companion case, Dreier v. United
    Search
  16. S. 400 . The next significant step in the development of the collective entity rule occurred in United States v. White
    Search
  17. at 322 U. S. 700 -701. The frontiers of the collective entity rule were expanded even further in Bellis v. United
    Search
  18. corporate records on Fifth Amendment grounds. Petitioner argues, however, that this rule falls in the wake of Fisher v. United
    Search
  19. States, 425 U. S. 391 (1976), and United States v. Doe
    Search
  20. in response to Boyd v. United
    Search
  21. though doing so involved a 'representation that the documents produced are those demanded by the subpoena,' Curcio v. United
    Search
  22. records on Fifth Amendment grounds. Petitioner also attempts to extract support for his contention from Curcio v. United
    Search
  23. United States v. Lang
    Search
  24. Kastigar v. United
    Search
  25. In re Grand Jury Subpoena (85-W-71-5), 784 F.2d 857 (CA8 1986), cert. dism'd sub nom. See v. United
    Search
  26. United States v. Malis
    Search
  27. cert. denied, 469 U.S. 819 (1984), which have refused to recognize a Fifth Amendment privilege, with United States v. Antonio
    Search
  28. Essgee Co. of China v. United
    Search
  29. he cases of Hale v. Henkel
    Search
  30. U. S. 43 , Wilson v. United
    Search
  31. States, 221 U. S. 361 , and Wheeler v. United
    Search
  32. Petitioner also offers United States v. Doe
    Search
  33. which overrides his claim of privilege' only with respect to the production of the records themselves. Wilson v. United
    Search
  34. the Court nonetheless upheld the contempt order. Bellis v. United
    Search
  35. Self-Incrimination Clause and of our cases respecting collective entities is a necessary starting point. In Boyd v. United
    Search
  36. under the Fifth Amendment, absent some showing that the documents were prepared under compulsion. United States v. Doe
    Search
  37. actually comprises three distinct propositions, none of which is relevant to the claim in this case. First, since Hale v. Henkel
    Search
  38. collective entity principle is not confined to corporations, and we apply it as well to labor unions, United States v. White
    Search
  39. U. S. 694 (1944), and partnerships, Bellis v. United
    Search
  40. States, 417 U. S. 85 (1974). Finally, in Wilson v. United
    Search
  41. as the Government and the majority suggest, inconsistent with them. The collective entity rule established in Hale v. Henkel
    Search
  42. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public
    Search
  43. in this case must be analyzed under the same principles applicable to other forms of compelled testimony. In Curcio v. United
    Search
  44. on behalf of the collective entity to which he belonged. Brief for United States in Curcio v. United
    Search
  45. and has always been understood to apply to testimony in all its forms. Doe v. United
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Braswell v. United
    Search
  47. Bellis v. United
    Search
  48. Curcio v. United
    Search
  49. of Hale v. Henkel
    Search
  50. Boyd v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial