Ableman v. American Sugar Refining Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by precluding the submission of evidence previously claimed to be within the privilege against self-incrimination
• holding that a “party who asserts the privilege against self-incrimination must bear the consequence of lack of evidence”
• noting that a district court is required to consider accommodation “if there is a timely request made to the court”
• noting that “[t]he claimant thus ‘faces a dilemma: remain silent and allow the forfeiture or testify against the forfeitability of his property and expose himself to incriminating admissions.’ ”
• affirming district court's finding that witness abused and manipulated privilege by selectively asserting it throughout, but seeking to waive it on eve of trial
• barring party from submitting in evidence “any material previously claimed by him to be within the privilege against self-incrimination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).