Case Citator › Hale v. Henkel

Hale v. Henkel

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
201 U.S. 43
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
52 of 52
Citing cases (total)
52
Treatment dates
1964
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Hale v. Henkel was overruled in part. All 52 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor rejected Hale's view that the Fifth Amendment disregarded a witness's risk of prosecution by another sovereign. The confirmed treatment is listed below. Later courts continued to apply Hale's rules concerning corporate records and unreasonable subpoenas; many citations describing a partial overruling reported Murphy's earlier action.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

52 later cases cite Hale v. Henkel; 52 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Hale v. Henkel?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Hale's same-sovereign view of the Fifth Amendment and held that a witness is protected against incrimination under another sovereign's law.

    Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Thus, the authorities relied on by the Court in Hale v. Henkel provided no support for the conclusion that under the Fifth Amendment “the only danger to be considered is one arising within the same jurisdiction and under the same sovereignty.” ... We hold that the constitutional privilege *78against self-incrimination protects a state witness against incrimination under federal as well as state law and a federal witness against incrimination under state as well as federal law.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hale v. Henkel and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace