Legal Opinion

Healey v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 6, 1950No. 12283_1PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DENMAN, Chief Judge.

These are five appeals from judgments of criminal contempt in which four were given sentences of a year or more and one, Averbuck, was fined $10.00 for refusing to answer questions put to them in sessions of the grand jury. Each claimed the right to refuse to answer on the ground that the answers would tend to incriminate.

Each is one of the thirty persons selectively chosen and sought to be served around seven o’clock in the morning on the 25th day of October, 1948, for appearance before the grand jury on that day, as described in our opinion in Kasinowitz v. United…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Counselman v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. United States v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. United States v. BryanSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  4. Wilson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  5. Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Emspak v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  2. Falstaff Brewing Corporation, General Brewing Company S & P Company v. Miller Brewing Company, and Philip Morris, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  3. In Re PilloSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1952
  4. United States v. LawnDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1953
  5. United States v. William L. PattersonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955

17 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