Legal Opinion
Piccirillo v. New York
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 25, 1971No. 97PublishedCited by 79 opinions
1Per curiam
The occasion for granting the writ in this case was to . resolve the important question whether it is necessary to accord “transactional” immunity, see Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (1892), to compel a witness to give testimony before a state grand jury over his claim of the privilege against self-incrimination, or whether-mere “use” immunity suffices to that end, see, e. g., Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52 (1964); Uniformed Sanitation Mén Assn. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York, 426 F. 2d 619 (CA2 1970).
After considering the briefs and oral argument's…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Counselman v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Uniformed Sanitation Men Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
- Gold v. MennaNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- People v. La BelloNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
3Cited by79 opinions
- Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Lefkowitz v. TurleySupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. FreedSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Lytle v. Household Manufacturing, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- United States v. John Edward Jones, A/K/A Liddy Jones, A/K/A Malik Shariff, United States of America v. Robert Avon Jones, A/K/A BobbyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1976
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.