CAMARATO

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Reilly v. Reilly, 182 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
  …a limited divorce and for adjudication of an existing dispute between the parties concerning property rights. MacLennan v. MacLennan, 1942, 311 Mass. 709, 42 N.E. 2d 838; Hitchcock v. Hitchcock, 1940, 373 Ill. 352, 26 N.E. 2d 108, certiorari denied, 311 U.S. 651, 61 S.Ct. 22, 85 L.Ed. 417; Cohagan v. Cohagan, 1920, 294 Ill. 439, 128 N.E. 494. See Note, 93 A.L.R. 327. The judgment is Affirmed. •…
• United States v. Singleton, 193 F.2d 464 (3d Cir. 1952)
  …in a business in violation of federal law cannot, as we have already pointed out, constitute the legal basis for defendant’s claim of protection. We have 'heretofore held, in Camarota v. United States, 3 Cir., 1940, 111 F. 2d 243, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 651, 61 S.Ct. 16, 85 L.Ed. 416, and recently reaffirmed, in United States v. Greenberg, supra, our conclusion that the apprehension of self-incrimination from answers to prospective questions is not a sufficient substitute for the requirement that the w…
• United States v. Greenberg, 187 F.2d 35 (3d Cir. 1951)
  …point out later, required to prove that the grand jury or the government actually had incriminating evidence against him. We turn then to the question properly before us. In Camarota v. United States, 3 Cir., 1940, 111 F. 2d 243, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 651, 61 S.Ct. 16, 85 L.Ed. 416, and very recently, with respect to questions asked a witness before this same grand jury, in United States v. Hoffman, 3 Cir., 1950, 185 F. 2d 617, this court has had occasion to consider the extent of the privilege again…

  ← 1 / 2 →