Citation network
Hale Vs. Henkel
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 12, 1906
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. 43 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Hale v. HenkelSearch
-
U.S. 43 (1906) Hale v. HenkelSearch
-
the oath administered to the foreman, which has come down to us from the most ancient times, and is found in Rex v. ShaftsburySearch
-
Substantially the same language is used in 1 Chitty Crim.Law 162. In United States v. HillSearch
-
Ward v. StateSearch
-
State v. TerrySearch
-
Commonwealth v. SmythSearch
-
State v. WolcottSearch
-
State v. MagrathSearch
-
In Blaney v. MarylandSearch
-
Similar language was used in United States v. KimballSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. TerrySearch
-
Fed.Rep. 355. And in Frisbie v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. AdamsSearch
-
In Pennsylvania, grand juries are somewhat more restricted in their powers than is usual in other States, McCullough v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Rowand v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Commonwealth v. GreenSearch
-
Pa.St. 531, and, in Tennessee, inquisitorial powers are granted in certain cases and withheld in others. State v. AdamsSearch
-
State v. SmithSearch
-
courts to designate an inquiry before a grant jury. It has received this interpretation in a number of cases. Yates v. TheSearch
-
Hogan v. StateSearch
-
statute, the amendment ceases to apply. The extent of this immunity was fully considered by this court in Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
almost the exact language of the act of February 25, 1903, above quoted. This act was declared by this court in Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
constitutional right to refuse to answer. Indeed, the act was passed apparently to meet the declaration in Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
it clearly appears that the immunity was not set up in good faith. We need not restate the reasons given in Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
suggestion that the statute offers no immunity from prosecution in the State courts was also fully considered in Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
and held to be no answer. The converse of this was also decided in Jack v. KansasSearch
-
the only danger to be considered is one arising within the same jurisdiction and under the same sovereignty. Queen v. BoyesSearch
-
King of the Two Sicilies v. WillcoxSearch
-
State v. MarchSearch
-
State v. ThomasSearch
-
N.Car. 599. The case of United States v. SalineSearch
-
The construction of this amendment was exhaustively considered in the case of Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
having different histories, and performing separate functions. Thus, in the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. BrimsonSearch
-
The case of Adams v. NewSearch
-
The Boyd case must also be read in connection with the still later case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. BairdSearch
-
a subpoena duces tecum, the production, upon a trial in court, of documentary evidence. As remarked in Summers v. MoseleySearch
-
Amey v. LongSearch
-
Bull v. LovelandSearch
-
United States Express Co. v. HendersonSearch
-
Railroad Company v. EllisSearch
-
Shaftsbury v. ArrowsmithSearch
-
Lee v. AngasSearch
-
trials. Such warrants are used in aid of public prosecutions (Cooley, Constitutional Lim., 6th ed. 364), and in Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
In Santa Clara County v. SouthernSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial