Legal Opinion

Hebebrand v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1935No. 25283, 25284 and 25285PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

These plaintiffs in error will be referred to as the defendants, who seek to invoke the cloak and protection of the immunity provisions contained in Article I, Section 10 of the state Constitution and in the Fifth Amendment of the federal Constitution, which provide that no “person shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself.” It is the contention of the state that Section 13444-4, General Code (113 Ohio Laws, 186), purports to grant complete immunity from prosecution for nine separate misdemeanors, six of which pertain to offenses concerning gambling, and three…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. DonovanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
  2. State v. StoutSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. United States v. Di CarloDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1952
  3. City of Cincinnati v. BawtenheimerOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. State v. BarnettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
  5. State v. MinamyerOhio Supreme Court · 1967

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API