United States v. Shvarts

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “questions put to the defendants by the NASD in carrying out its own legitimate investigative purposes do not activate the privilege against self-incrimination”
• “It is sufficient to acknowledge ... the constitutional obligation [to disclose], without the necessity to discuss the requirement of ‘materiality’ as a precondition to its violation.” (emphasis added)
• questions put to defendant in carrying out a private corporation’s own legitimate investigatory purposes do not activate the privilege against self-incrimination
• \It is ... beyond cavil that questions put to the defendants by the NASD in carrying out its own legitimate investigative purposes do not activate the privilege against self-incrimination....\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).