Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Rogers Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 26, 1951

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 4 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Hale Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
  2. Mcalister Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
  3. Shepard Vs. Barron US Supreme Court · May 31, 1904
    Distinguished
  4. United States Vs. Monia US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1943
  5. Rogers v. United
    Search
  6. States - 340 U.S. 367 (1951) U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. United
    Search
  7. States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951) Rogers v. United
    Search
  8. Party are incriminating, both as to a violation of the Smith Act and as to a conspiracy to violate that Act, Blau v. United
    Search
  9. of the privilege against self-incrimination, she was required to claim it. Page 340 U. S. 371 United States v. Monia
    Search
  10. United States v. White
    Search
  11. rests on the ground that mere disclosure of the name of the recipient of the books tends to incriminate. In Blau v. United
    Search
  12. not further incriminate her. Disclosure of a fact waives the privilege as to details. As this Court stated in Brown v. Walker
    Search
  13. The decisions of this Court in Arndstein v. McCarthy
    Search
  14. U. S. 71 (1920), and McCarthy v. Arndstein
    Search
  15. and relied particularly upon Brown v. Walker
    Search
  16. supra, and Foster v. People
    Search
  17. tend to incriminate as to the different crime of conspiracy to violate the Smith Act. Our opinion in Patricia Blau v. United
    Search
  18. U.S.Const. Amend. v. The
    Search
  19. Citing Vajtauer v. Commissioner
    Search
  20. of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103 , 273 U. S. 113 (1927). See Smith v. United
    Search
  21. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  22. Wilson v. United
    Search
  23. Wheeler v. United
    Search
  24. Grant v. United
    Search
  25. Essgee Co. v. United
    Search
  26. Brown v. United
    Search
  27. U. S. 694 (1944). Cf. United States v. Fleischman
    Search
  28. of the type considered in Shapiro v. United
    Search
  29. Quoted with approval in Powers v. United
    Search
  30. Buckeye Powder Co. v. Hazard
    Search
  31. Foster v. People
    Search
  32. Heike v. United
    Search
  33. Mason v. United
    Search
  34. Browne v. United
    Search
  35. Donegan v. United
    Search
  36. Pomerantz v. United
    Search
  37. Grove v. United
    Search
  38. McDonald v. United
    Search
  39. Rosenthal v. United
    Search
  40. Didenti v. United
    Search
  41. States, 44 F.2d 537, 538 (1930). See also Feder v. United
    Search
  42. Worthington v. United
    Search
  43. to use the first of these methods, however, runs afoul of approximately 150 years of precedent. See Patricia Blau v. United
    Search
  44. Boyd v. United
    Search
  45. United States v. Murdock
    Search
  46. and that vague and uncertain evidence will not support a finding of waiver. Smith v. United
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. United
    Search
  48. Act, Blau v. United
    Search
  49. In Blau v. United
    Search
  50. and McCarthy v. Arndstein
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial