COKER

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956)
  …’s behalf, because the privilege is for the personal protection of the claimant and may not be invoked on behalf of anyone else. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652; United States v. Field, 2 Cir., 193 F. 2d 92, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 894, 72 S.Ct. 202, 96 L.Ed. 670. There is no search and seizure amounting to a denial of due process as to Vann for the same, reasons we- have given above. As to the insurance company, compare Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40…
• Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978)
  …670 (1975). Those regulations ultimately were disapproved. S. Res. 244, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975), 121 Cong. Rec. 28609-28614 (1975). See also n. 16, infra. See, e. g., McCoy v. Providence Journal Co., 190 F. 2d 760, 765-766 (CA1), cert. denied, 342 U. S. 894 (1951); Fayette County v. Martin, 279 Ky. 387, 395-396, 130 S. W. 2d 838, 843 (1939); Nowack v. Auditor General, 243 Mich. 200, 203-205, 219 N. W. 749, 750 (1928); In re Egan, 205 N. Y. 147, 154 — 155, 98 N. E. 467, 469 (1912); State ex rel. Nevada…
• United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1977)
  …10 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 954 (1971), and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice. United States v. McHie, 196 F. 586 (ND Ill. 1912); Field v. United States, 193 F. 2d 92, 95-96 (CA2), cert. denied, 342 U. S. 894 (1951).20 Turning to the facts of this case, we do not think that the Company was a third party so far removed from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled. A United States District Court found that there w…