Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Brown Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 09, 1959

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

68 entries 3 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Hale Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
    Distinguished
  2. Anderson Vs. Dunn US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1821
  3. Burdeau Vs. Mcdowell US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1921
  4. Brown v. United
    Search
  5. States - 359 U.S. 41 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. United
    Search
  6. States, 359 U.S. 41 (1959) Brown v. United
    Search
  7. privilege against self-incrimination, and that the witness may not therefore lawfully refuse to testify. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  8. and the history of its reaffirmance through the years have been so recently reexamined by this Court in Ullmann v. United
    Search
  9. U. S. 422 , as to make it a needless exercise to retrace that ground here. Suffice it to repeat that Brown v. Walker
    Search
  10. personal to the judge, raising issues of possible unfairness resulting from the operation of human emotions. Cf. Coke v. United
    Search
  11. Sacher v. United
    Search
  12. Offutt v. United
    Search
  13. Nye v. United
    Search
  14. of no contempt. It was incumbent upon the court unequivocally to order the petitioner to answer. Cf. Wong Gim Ying v. United
    Search
  15. evidence, the proceeding would have been conducted upon notice and hearing in conformity with Rule 42(b). See Carlson v. United
    Search
  16. His deliberate refusal, Page 359 U. S. 51 continuing his contempt, cf. Yates v. United
    Search
  17. Because there is no statutory limit upon a District Court's sentencing power in cases of criminal contempt, Green v. United
    Search
  18. States, 356 U. S. 165 , this Court is not without power to review its exercise. Cf. Yates v. United
    Search
  19. Nilva v. United
    Search
  20. Green v. United
    Search
  21. Rogers v. United
    Search
  22. Wilson v. United
    Search
  23. United States v. Curcio
    Search
  24. Lopiparo v. United
    Search
  25. United States v. Weinberg
    Search
  26. F.2d 394, 396. For the earlier practice at common law, see People ex rel. Phelps v. Fancher
    Search
  27. Hackley v. Kelly
    Search
  28. Heard v. Pierce
    Search
  29. In Rogers v. United
    Search
  30. that Rule 42(a) was reserved for exceptional circumstances. These might include threatening the judge, United States v. Hall
    Search
  31. or other acts disrupting court proceedings and obstructing the administration of the court's business. United States v. Landes
    Search
  32. properly have summarily committed the petitioner to jail for civil contempt until he answered the questions. Oriel v. Russell
    Search
  33. U. S. 358 , 278 U. S. 363 . See Gompers v. Buck's
    Search
  34. Rule 42(b), and the Government so concedes. That is the normal manner of proceeding in these cases. See Wong Gim Ying v. United
    Search
  35. Carlson v. United
    Search
  36. days of the termination of these proceedings under Rule 35. But that power has been held to be discretionary, Flores v. United
    Search
  37. Miller v. United
    Search
  38. Wheat. 204, 19 U. S. 231 . As MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER has said in Sacher v. United
    Search
  39. that, 'in the development of our liberty, insistence upon procedural regularity has been a large factor.' Burdeau v. McDowell
    Search
  40. And, shortly thereafter, the Court adopted this viewpoint. See Offutt v. United
    Search
  41. This Court, with its supervisory power over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts, McNabb v. United
    Search
  42. a not unreasonable fear in such circumstances. Regardless of the legal significance of such a defense, see Widger v. United
    Search
  43. Cammer v. United
    Search
  44. Cooke v. United
    Search
  45. the contempt found was for refusal to answer the six substantive questions, and not for any other answers. Cf. Carlson v. United
    Search
  46. O'Connell v. United
    Search
  47. Lang v. United
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. United
    Search
  49. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  50. Ullmann v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial