In re Dougherty

New York Court of Appeals

In re Dougherty

166 N.E.2d 192, 7 N.Y.2d 965, 198 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1960 N.Y. LEXIS 1481

DecidedFebruary 25, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 166 N.E.2d 192 (In re Dougherty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Dougherty, 166 N.E.2d 192, 7 N.Y.2d 965, 198 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1960 N.Y. LEXIS 1481 (N.Y. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant contended that use of his testimony in the disbarment proceeding which was exacted under a grant of immunity pursuant to subdivision (e) of section 18 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (49 U. S. Stat. 832; U. S. Code, tit. 15, § 79r, subd. [e]) violated appellant’s rights under the statute and the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Appeals held that a disciplinary proceeding was not a penalty or forfeiture within the meaning of the statute and that such testimony was properly considered in imposing disbarment on appellant. [See 7 N Y 2d 869.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant contended that use of his testimony in the disbarment proceeding which was exacted under a grant of immunity pursuant to subdivision (e) of section 18 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (49 U. S. Stat. 832; U. S. Code, tit. 15, § 79r, subd. [e]) violated appellant’s rights under the statute and the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Appeals held that a disciplinary proceeding was not a penalty or forfeiture within the meaning of the statute and that such testimony was properly considered in imposing disbarment on appellant. [See 7 N Y 2d 869.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 N.E.2d 192, 7 N.Y.2d 965, 198 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1960 N.Y. LEXIS 1481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dougherty-ny-1960.