Legal Opinion

In re Anin

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1906PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Original.

1Opinion of the Court

ORAL OPINION.

Hartwell, J.

There are three questions requiring adjudication in this case, namely: (1) Upon the relator’s claim that he could not be required to answer the question propounded to him by the grand- jury, because to do so might incriminate himself; and (2) because the question was upon an immaterial matter; and (3) that no adjudication of contempt was made.

At the argument on the second question, I drew the attention of counsel to legislation upon the subject in certain states, and to the rule of common law, in the absence of controlling legislation, that a witness is not privileged…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ex Parte TerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Ex parte Fugihara OriemonHawaii Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. BrooksHawaii Supreme Court · 1960
  2. In re AbreuHawaii Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Application of Palakiko and MajorsHawaii Supreme Court · 1951
  4. In re BalucanHawaii Supreme Court · 1960
  5. In re PalakikoHawaii Supreme Court · 1951

1 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