Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mcphaul Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 14, 1960

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

40 entries 4 linked 36 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Bryan US Supreme Court · May 08, 1950
  2. Endicott Johnson Corp. Vs. Perkins US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1943
  3. Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. Vs. Walling US Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1946
  4. Stebbins Vs. Duncan US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1883
  5. McPhaul v. United
    Search
  6. States - 364 U.S. 372 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court McPhaul v. United
    Search
  7. States, 364 U.S. 372 (1960) McPhaul v. United
    Search
  8. or is impeding justice by not explaining what happened to them, United States v. Goldstein
    Search
  9. notwithstanding he has never claimed he could not produce them. We think the Court's decision in United States v. Bryan
    Search
  10. the objection or remedy it is in itself a contempt of its authority and an obstruction of its processes. See Bevan v. Krieger
    Search
  11. them. The burden then shifted to the petitioner to present some evidence to explain or justify his refusal. Morrison v. California
    Search
  12. even though production of the papers might tend to incriminate (their keeper) personally.' United States v. White
    Search
  13. Rogers v. United
    Search
  14. States, 340 U. S. 367 , 340 U. S. 372 . And see Curcio v. United
    Search
  15. questions respecting the records, and thus risking waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination. See Curcio v. United
    Search
  16. States, 354 U. S. 118 . Nor does the rule of Blau v. United
    Search
  17. States, 340 U. S. 159 , excuse one subpoenaed to produce records in a representative capacity, United States v. White
    Search
  18. petitioner made no objection to the subpoena before the Subcommittee on the ground of pertinency, see Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  19. Brown v. United
    Search
  20. U. S. 383 not more sweeping than those sustained against challenges of undue breadth in Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins
    Search
  21. U. S. 501 , and Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling
    Search
  22. See also the companion case of United States v. Fleischman
    Search
  23. that connects the defendant either with the organization or with the documents. Reliance is placed on United States v. Bryan
    Search
  24. before the Committee, because no quorum of the Committee was present when the witness made default. In United States v. Fleischman
    Search
  25. As respects the shift of the burden of going forward in a criminal prosecution to the defendant ( Morrison v. California
    Search
  26. may be sufficient under the cases where it has first been shown that he has a connection with them. See United States v. Fleischman
    Search
  27. Nilva v. United
    Search
  28. U.S. Supreme Court McPhaul v. United
    Search
  29. United States v. Goldstein
    Search
  30. See Bevan v. Krieger
    Search
  31. Morrison v. California
    Search
  32. United States v. White
    Search
  33. Curcio v. United
    Search
  34. See Curcio v. United
    Search
  35. of Blau v. United
    Search
  36. Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  37. and Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling
    Search
  38. of United States v. Fleischman
    Search
  39. In United States v. Fleischman
    Search
  40. See United States v. Fleischman
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial