Citation network
Clark Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 13, 1933
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
-
Clark v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 289 U.S. 1 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Clark v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933) Clark v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. DachisSearch
-
United States v. AppelSearch
-
United States v. KarnsSearch
-
Lang v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. McGovernSearch
-
Deceit by an attorney may be punished as a contempt if the deceit is an abuse of the functions of his office ( Bowles v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. FordSearch
-
of which she was a part, and made its processes a mockery. This is contempt, whatever it may be besides. Sinclair v. UnitedSearch
-
upon the subject in the adjudicated cases is Page 289 U. S. 13 dictum, rather than decision. See Woodward v. LeavittSearch
-
Nunns v. CountySearch
-
to the bribe. This is paying too high a price for the assurance to a juror of serenity of mind. People ex rel. Nunns v. CountySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that a mere charge of illegality, not supported by any evidence, will set the confidences free. See, e.g., Reynell v. SpryeSearch
-
Regina v. BollivantSearch
-
O'Rourke v. DarbishireSearch
-
also pp. 614, 622, 631, 633. When that evidence is supplied, the seal of secrecy is broken. See also Regina v. CoxSearch
-
Bujac v. WilsonSearch
-
In re Niday, 15 Idaho, 559, 98 P. 845. The judgment of the House of Lords in O'Rourke v. DarbishireSearch
-
involved in equal guilt. The attorney may be innocent, and still the guilty client must let the truth come out. Regina v. CoxSearch
-
Matthews v. HoaglandSearch
-
State v. FaulknerSearch
-
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. SmithhartSearch
-
State v. KiddSearch
-
Page 289 U. S. 16 cf. Bank of Utica v. MersereauSearch
-
Coveney v. TannahillSearch
-
vital in our polity, of preserving trial by jury in its purity against the inroads of corruption. Cf. Attorney General v. PelletierSearch
-
Hirschberg v. BoardSearch
-
State v. CampbellSearch
-
Nunns v. CountySearch
-
Nor is there anything in our decision at variance with the rule, which is not without exceptions ( Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Woodward v. LeavittSearch
-
Hyman v. EamesSearch
-
Fuller v. FletcherSearch
-
F. 34, 39), that the testimony of a juror is not admissible for the impeachment of his verdict. McDonald v. PlessSearch
-
to a prosecution for contempt. Little was left of that defense after the decision of this Court in United States v. ShippSearch
-
England since 1796. Matter of Crossley, 6 Term Reports 701. It has been rejected generally in the states. Dale v. StateSearch
-
State v. DistrictSearch
-
State v. KellerSearch
-
Boorde v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Huntington v. McMahonSearch
-
State v. MatthewsSearch
-
State v. Harper'sSearch
-
Carson v. EnnisSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Clark v. UnitedSearch
-
Bowles v. UnitedSearch
-
Sinclair v. UnitedSearch
-
See Woodward v. LeavittSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial