Collective Entity Doctrine

11 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• In re Sealed Case
  877 F.2d 83· D.C. Cir.· 1989-06-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an individual can be considered a custodian of corporate records for Fifth Amendment purposes if they have possession or control, and that a mere assertion of personal use or embezzlement does not remove records from the collective entity doctrine. However, th
• In re TWO Grand Jury Subpoenae Duces Tecum Dated August 21 v. DOE
  793 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that attorney-client privilege does not protect financial and fee information, and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to collective entities or their records, including those required by regulation.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings Co.
  838 F.2d 624· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 9×
  A corporation's custodian of records cannot assert a personal Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to avoid authenticating corporate documents, even in a one-person corporation.
• In re Grand Jury NO. 86-3 (Will Roberts Corporation)
  816 F.2d 569· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 9×
  A sole shareholder cannot assert a Fifth Amendment privilege against the act of producing corporate documents; the corporation must produce them, even if it requires appointing a new agent.
• In re Sealed Case (government Records)
  950 F.2d 736· D.C. Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by relying on an ex parte submission without examining the documents to determine if they were personal or government records, and that the act of producing government records is not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against s
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of John DOE
  814 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 6×
  A custodian of closely-held corporate records has no Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for the act of producing those records, even if the corporation is essentially a sole proprietorship in practice.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum
  795 F.2d 904· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 4×
  The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not protect an individual from producing corporate records held in a representative capacity, even if the act of production might be incriminating.
• In re Grand Jury Empanelled March 8
  722 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-23 ·cited 2×
  The act of producing corporate records, even if it acknowledges their existence and possession, is not testimonial or incriminating under the Fifth Amendment and can be compelled.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated November 12
  792 F. Supp. 1423· S.D. Fla.· 1992-02-07
  A former corporate officer cannot resist a subpoena for corporate records, obtained during their tenure, by asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as the act of production is considered an act of the corporation.