Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ullmann Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 26, 1956

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

66 entries 9 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Hale Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
  2. interstate Commerce Commission Vs. Brimson US Supreme Court · May 26, 1894
  3. New York Trust Co. Vs. Eisner US Supreme Court · May 16, 1921
  4. Thomas Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1945
  5. Crowell Vs. Benson US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1932
  6. United States Vs. Rumely US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1953
  7. Hines Vs. Davidowitz US Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1941
  8. Counselman Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1892
  9. Kovacs Vs. Cooper US Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1949
  10. Ullmann v. United
    Search
  11. States - 350 U.S. 422 (1956) U.S. Supreme Court Ullmann v. United
    Search
  12. States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956) Ullmann v. United
    Search
  13. in doing so, it does not exceed the constitutional power of Congress. Pp. 350 U. S. 434 -436. 4. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  14. from this order, but the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal on the authority of Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  15. The importance of the questions at issue, in view of the differences between the legislation sustained in Brown v. Walker
    Search
  16. innocent, as well as to the guilty, and we have been admonished that it should be given a liberal application. Hoffman v. United
    Search
  17. Maffie v. United
    Search
  18. the Immunity Act as violating the Fifth Amendment is not a new one. Sixty years ago, this Court considered, in Brown v. Walker
    Search
  19. Petitioner, however, attempts to distinguish Brown v. Walker
    Search
  20. He argues that this case is different from Brown v. Walker
    Search
  21. him true immunity. This, he alleges, is significantly different from the impact of testifying on the auditor in Brown v. Walker
    Search
  22. the right to claim that it is criminal in nature. Again, the petitioner seeks to distinguish this case from Brown v. Walker
    Search
  23. testimony shall not be used against the witness in any proceeding in any court. Such a clause was construed in Adams v. Maryland
    Search
  24. U. S. 179 , to apply to state courts. In Brown v. Walker
    Search
  25. We have already, in the name of the Commerce Clause, upheld a similar restriction on state court jurisdiction, Brown v. Walker
    Search
  26. reach of congressional power with respect to commerce and its power with respect to national security. See also Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search
  27. Petitioner also urges that, if Brown v. Walker
    Search
  28. to a literal reading of the Fifth Amendment. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  29. was the second case to deal with an immunity statute. Four years previously, in Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  30. with this background that the 1893 statute, providing complete immunity from prosecution, was passed, and that Brown v. Walker
    Search
  31. opinions reflect the thoroughness with which the issues were considered. Since that time, the Court's holding in Brown v. Walker
    Search
  32. treated as definitive by this Court in opinions written, among others, by Holmes and Brandeis, JJ. See, e.g., McCarthy v. Arndstein
    Search
  33. Heike v. United
    Search
  34. Shapiro v. United
    Search
  35. see id. at 335 U. S. 6 -7, n. 4. Moreover, the States, with one exception -- a case decided prior to Brown v. Walker
    Search
  36. Boyd v. United
    Search
  37. States, 116 U. S. 616 , 116 U. S. 634 . We leave Boyd v. United
    Search
  38. States unqualified, as it was left unqualified in Brown v. Walker
    Search
  39. Immunity displaces the danger. Once the reason for the privilege ceases, the privilege ceases. We reaffirm Brown v. Walker
    Search
  40. except as to the statement that no constitutional Page 350 U. S. 440 guarantee enjoys preference. Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  41. Kovacs v. Cooper
    Search
  42. It is true that the Court in Brown v. Walker
    Search
  43. U. S. 22 , 285 U. S. 62 . . . United States v. Rumely
    Search
  44. U. S. 41 , 345 U. S. 45 . . . United States v. C.I
    Search
  45. O., 335 U. S. 106 . . . Brandeis, J. concurring in Ashwander v. TVA
    Search
  46. Cf. Shapiro v. United
    Search
  47. has the power to provide, and has provided, that immunity from prosecution which the Constitution requires. See Heike v. United
    Search
  48. Gompers v. United
    Search
  49. JUSTICE BLACK concurs, dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of conviction. I would base the reversal on Boyd v. United
    Search
  50. States, 116 U. S. 616 , or, in the alternative, I would overrule the five-to-four decision of Brown v. Walker
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial