TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Curtin v. United States

Curtin v. United States, 236 U.S. 96 (1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 25, 1915
Docket
No. 472
Judges
McKenna, McReynolds
Citations
236 U.S. 9635 S. Ct. 27159 L. Ed. 4821915 U.S. LEXIS 1800
Syllabus
Decided on the authority of Burdick y. United States, ante, p. 79.
Summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. The facts, which are similar to. those involved in the preceding case, are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — McKenna

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.

This writ of error was argued and submitted at the same time as Burdick v. United States, just decided, ante, p. 79. Its purpose is to review a judgment for contempt against Curtin upon presentment of the Federal grand jury for refusing to answer certain questions in the same proceeding considered in the Burdick Case in regard to a certain article published in the New York Tribune. Curtin'is a reporter on that paper. He declined to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would tend to incriminate him. At a subsequent hearing a pardon issued by the President was offered him , (it was the same in substance as that offered Burdick) and he was again questioned. He declined to receive the pardon or to answer the questions on the same ground as before. He was, on presentment of the grand jury, adjudged guilty of *97 contempt, fined as Burdick was, with the same leave to purge himself of the contempt, the court deciding that the pardon was valid and sufficient for immunity. Upon Curtin again refusing to answer, the judgment was made absolute and he was committed to the custody of the United States Marshal.

It will be observed, therefore, the case is almost identical in its facts with the Burdick Case and exactly the same in principle. On the authority of that case, therefore, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to dismiss the proceedings in contempt and discharge Curtin from custody.

Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1956: 11964: 119562026peak 1956 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Batchelor7 C.M.A. 354 (1956)
  2. United States v. Kirsch15 C.M.A. 84 (1964) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. United States v. Kirsch15 C.M.A. 84 (1964) · Dissent
  2. United States v. Batchelor7 C.M.A. 354 (1956)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list