Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Brown Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 31, 1958

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

41 entries 41 unlinked
Show
  1. Brown v. United
    Search
  2. States - 356 U.S. 148 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. United
    Search
  3. States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958) Brown v. United
    Search
  4. limited), not a voluntary witness, defines the testimonial duty. See Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Appel
    Search
  5. disclosures, but only by testimony that itself incriminates. More particularly, petitioner's reliance is on Arndstein v. McCarthy
    Search
  6. Fitzpatrick v. United
    Search
  7. Reagan v. United
    Search
  8. Walder v. United
    Search
  9. eroding the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. See, Page 356 U. S. 158 e.g., Feldman v. United
    Search
  10. Rogers v. United
    Search
  11. is unwarranted. I would reverse the petitioner's conviction on the basis of the general rule stated in Arndstein v. McCarthy
    Search
  12. Wilson v. United
    Search
  13. the trier of fact may draw such inferences from the abstention as he sees fit on the issues in the case. Bilokumsky v. Tod
    Search
  14. Bilokumsky v. Tod
    Search
  15. issues, cannot be foreclosed by the witness, and often cannot even be anticipated by him. See, e.g., Radio Cab, Inc. v. Houser
    Search
  16. Atkinson v. Atchison
    Search
  17. Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 197 F.2d 244. See also Powers v. United
    Search
  18. opposing party was extreme and irremediable, the court might even enter judgment in his favor. See Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  19. U. S. 322 , 212 U. S. 349 -354. Compare National Union of Marine Cooks v. Arnold
    Search
  20. for the crime of contempt. My views in that respect are set forth in some detail in my dissenting opinions in Sacher v. United
    Search
  21. States, 343 U. S. 1 , 343 U. S. 14 , and Green v. United
    Search
  22. As I construe the holding in Arndstein v. McCarthy
    Search
  23. concerning the same offense cannot harm him any further, and the reason for the privilege disappears. But cf. Rogers v. United
    Search
  24. of our general supervisory authority over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts, McNabb v. United
    Search
  25. Offutt v. United
    Search
  26. to avoid both prejudice to the Government's case and unnecessary delay in the conduct of the trial. Cf. Rubenstein v. Kleven
    Search
  27. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 37(b). In addition, it appears that ordinary exercise of the civil contempt power, cf. Yates v. United
    Search
  28. U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. United
    Search
  29. United States v. Appel
    Search
  30. Reagan v. United
    Search
  31. Feldman v. United
    Search
  32. Radio Cab, Inc. v. Houser
    Search
  33. Powers v. United
    Search
  34. See Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  35. Compare National Union of Marine Cooks v. Arnold
    Search
  36. Sacher v. United
    Search
  37. and Green v. United
    Search
  38. McNabb v. United
    Search
  39. Cf. Rubenstein v. Kleven
    Search
  40. Yates v. United
    Search
  41. Arndstein v. McCarthy
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial