green
Positive treatment
13.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Zynda v. Arwood
Byers, 402 U.S. at 428-431 , 91 S.Ct. 1535 ; U.S. v. Alkhafaji, 754 F.2d 641, 643-46 (6th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder
(2×)
The district court rejected this argument on the merits, concluding that two of the three factors we consider in evaluating a self-incrimination challenge to record-keeping requirements cut against the plaintiffs: The statute's primary purpose is regulatoryas it encompasses largely lawful activity, not a "highly selective and inherently suspect group of people"and "merely fulfilling the records requirements does not demonstrate involvement in criminal activity." JA 60-62 (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. United States v. Alkhafaji, 754 F.2d 641, 643 (6th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Connection Distr v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
The district court rejected this argument on the merits, concluding that two of the three factors we consider in evaluating a self-incrimination challenge to record- keeping requirements cut against the plaintiffs: The statute’s primary purpose is regulatory—as it encompasses largely lawful activity, not a “highly selective and inherently suspect group of people”—and “merely fulfilling the records requirements does not demonstrate involvement in criminal activity.” JA 60–62 (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. United States v. Alkhafaji, 754 F.2d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert L. Steele
(2×)
Because the Fifth Amendment prohibits any requirement that an individual respond to a directly incriminating inquiry, see generally United States v. Alkhafaji, 754 F.2d 641 (6th Cir.1985); id. at 648 (Krupansky, J., concurring), the "exculpatory no" doctrine recognizes that, under some circumstances, the government cannot prosecute a defendant under section 1001 for having provided a false or fraudulent answer to potentially incriminating questions. 13 Juxtaposed with the constitutionally protected right against self incrimination is the explicit recognition that Congress intentionally drafted…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Craib v. Bulmash
(See, e.g., United States v. Alkhafaji (6th Cir.1985) 754 F.2d 641, 646-648 [duty under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to report delivery of firearms to common carrier even though transporting firearms may be unlawful]; United States v. Dichne (2d Cir.1979) 612 F.2d 632, 638-641 , cert. den. 445 U.S. 928 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 760 , 100 S.Ct. 1314 ] [duty under the Bank Secrecy Act to disclose export of monetary instruments even though money may be stolen]; United States v. Stirling (2d Cir.1978) 571 F.2d 708, 727-728 , cert. den. 439 U.S. 824 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 116 , 99 S.Ct. 93 ] [duty under the Securities Act…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Effie Adair
Finally, compliance with the requirement would create a substantial likelihood of prosecution. 10 Alkhafaji, 754 F.2d at 643 (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In holding that the statute did not violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, we noted that many of the people required to give the written notice would not be acting unlawfully and that the statute was not, therefore, directed at a "highly selective and inherently suspect" group of people. 754 F.2d at 647. 14 This reasoning is applicable here as there is no reason to believe that the persons subject to the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act are any more "inherently suspect" than are persons shipping firearms.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grand Jury Proceedings v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In holding that the statute did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination, we noted that many of the people required to give the written notice would not be acting unlawfully and that the statute was not, therefore, directed at a “highly selective and inherently suspect” group of people. 754 F.2d at 647.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Shakir W. Al-Khafaji
See United States v. Alkhafaji, 754 F.2d 641 (6th Cir. 1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George Dunbar PREWITT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Defendant-Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Defendant-Appellee
84-4700.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 8, 1985.
George D. Prewitt, Jr., plaintiff-appellant, pro se., Wyneva Johnson, Eric Scharf, U.S. Postal Service, Washington, D.C., Glen H. Davidson, U.S. Atty., John R. Hailman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for defendant-appellee.
Gee, Johnson, Davis.
Published
PER CURIAM:
A careful examination of the briefs and record in this appeal convinces us that the Appellant Prewitt has received at the hands of the trial court all the relief to which he is properly entitled: back pay, retroactive seniority, and assignment to the desired position. With his presently-appealed claims to tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages against defendants enjoying immunity to such claims, to attorneys’ fees when he at all times acted pro se, and the like, we stand at the gate of the realms of fantasy. We decline to enter in.
The real controversy has ended, with Mr. Prewitt having prevailed and received appropriate relief. Further frivolous demands of the sort presented here may subject Mr. Prewitt, even as a pro se litigant, to sanctions for vexatious multiplication of litigation. See Lewis v. Brown & Root, Inc., 711 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir.1983).
AFFIRMED. •