SHEIN ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1964)
  …[was] asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it [could not] be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result,” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S., at 486-487; see Singleton v. United States, 343 U. S. 944. Reversed. While Mr. Justice Douglas joins the opinion of the Court, he also adheres to his concurrence in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 345. In both cases the question was whether comment upon the failure of an accused to take the stand i…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1957)
  …cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486-487. See also, Trock v. United States, 351 U. S. 976; Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190; Singleton v. United States, 343 U. S. 944; Greenberg v. United States, 343 U. S. 918. Pulford v. United States, 155 F. 2d 944, 947; Lumber Products Assn. v. United States, 144 F. 2d 546, 553; Carolene Products Co. v. United States, 140 F. 2d 61, 66-67; United States v. Illinois Alcohol Co.…
• Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1955)
  …. 9th car.). In United States v. Singleton, 193 F. 2d 464 (C. A. 3d Cir.), the defendant was convicted of contempt for refusing to answer the question “What business is he in?” with respect to three named individuals. This Court summarily reversed, 343 U. S. 944, citing Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, and Greenberg v. United States, 343 [*200] U. S. 918. The Hoffman decision, in reversing 185 F. 2d 617 (C. A. 3d Cir.), upheld an assertion of the privilege in response to questions concerning the whe…

  ← 1 / 2 →