Citation network
United States Vs. Bryan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 08, 1950
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. 323 (1950) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. BryanSearch
-
U.S. 323 (1950) United States v. BryanSearch
-
of the Committee at the time of the return to the subpoena was not an essential element of the offense ( Christoffel v. UnitedSearch
-
when the report was approved, and upon this Page 339 U. S. 329 Court's recent decision in Christoffel v. UnitedSearch
-
which he does not have unless he is responsible Page 339 U. S. 331 for their unavailability, cf. Jurney v. MacCrackenSearch
-
supra, or is impeding justice by not explaining what happened to them, United States v. GoldsteinSearch
-
every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned. See e.g., Blair v. UnitedSearch
-
Blackmer v. UnitedSearch
-
the objection or remedy it is, in itself, a contempt of its authority and an obstruction of its processes. See Bevan v. KriegerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
matter how the Committee had been constituted at the time. This Court considered a similar question in Hale v. HenkelSearch
-
Loubriel v. UnitedSearch
-
That purpose was Page 339 U. S. 336 effectively nullified in 1892 by this Court's decision in Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
The courts must therefore give effect to the statute. Cameron v. UnitedSearch
-
not reach that result if it is contrary to the congressional intent and leads to absurd conclusions. United States v. KirbySearch
-
Glickstein v. UnitedSearch
-
crime about which he has been summoned for questioning, but commits the criminal act then and there. In Glickstein v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 222 U. S. 142 . The distinction is fully spelled out in a Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, Edelstein v. UnitedSearch
-
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in just such a case. See In re Kaplan Bros., 213 F. 753 (1914). And see Cameron v. UnitedSearch
-
Heike v. UnitedSearch
-
Blackmer v. UnitedSearch
-
Leber v. UnitedSearch
-
London Guarantee & Accident Co., Ltd. v. DoyleSearch
-
Berge v. SuperiorSearch
-
See the court's opinion in United States v. BarskySearch
-
F.Supp. 165 (1947), aff'd, Barsky v. UnitedSearch
-
which was in effect declared insufficient to require a witness to give self-incriminatory testimony in Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
See Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
testimony on condition that the witness disclosing the same would be given immunity. In the case of Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
See Jurney v. MacCrackenSearch
-
from the principle underlying previous interpretations of other immunity legislation. Page 339 U. S. 347 Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
which it admits has already been irrevocably frustrated by the decision in Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
reasonable in view of the practical differences between the two. See dissenting opinion in United States v. FleischmanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. BryanSearch
-
Christoffel v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. GoldsteinSearch
-
Blair v. UnitedSearch
-
See Bevan v. KriegerSearch
-
Cameron v. UnitedSearch
-
In Glickstein v. UnitedSearch
-
Edelstein v. UnitedSearch
-
Berge v. SuperiorSearch
-
United States v. BarskySearch
-
Barsky v. UnitedSearch
-
of Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial