Supreme Court· 11/5/1945

In Re Michael

Citations

326 U.S. 224
66 S. Ct. 78
90 L. Ed. 30
1945 U.S. LEXIS 2649

How courts have described this case

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

noting that in performing the truth-finding function the trial court “must hear both truthful and false witnesses”
noting that perjured testimony “need not necessarily ... obstruct or halt the judicial process”
construing history of § 268 of the Judicial Code, precursor to 18 U.S.C. § 401, as embodying a congressional plan to limit the contempt power to the least possible power adequate to the end proposed
construing history of § 268 of the Judicial Code, precursor to 18 U.S.C. § 401, as embodying a congressional plan to limit the contempt power to the least possible power adequate to the end proposed
\These unequivocal answers were clear enough so that if they are shown to be false petitioner would clearly be guilty of perjury.\
“These unequivocal answers were clear enough so that if they are shown to be false petitioner would clearly be guilty of perjury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Black, Jackson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

157 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named In Re Michael

19 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.