Legal Opinion

Bowles v. Seitz

District Court, W.D. Tennessee

Decided October 10, 1945No. Civil Action 716PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BOYD, District Judge.

The defendant, J. Edward Seitz, has been required to testify and produce documentary evidence in accordance with an administrative subpcena duces tecum and an order of Court in connection with the treble damage feature of this case. This defendant claims his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and invokes Section 202(g) of the Emergency Price Control Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 922 (g), and the Compulsory Testimony Act, found in 49 U.S.C.A. § 46.

It is plaintiff’s contention that the present action for treble damages is not a “criminal case” within the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Helvering v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Huntington v. AttrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  4. Wilson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  5. Helwig v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1903

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Harper v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
  2. Allred v. GravesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  3. United States v. ShapiroCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
  4. Bowles v. MisleDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1946
  5. In re DelehantyNew York Supreme Court · 1952

7 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