In re Nachman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under the provisions of section 7, the witness is compelled to give testimony concerning his business, and he cannot interpose objections which will shut out all light whatever from his creditors. The constitutional immunity can only be invoked to protect him from answering a question the answer to which might subject him to prosecution. In the further conduct of the examination the referee is directed, whenever a question is propounded, to notify the witness that he is not required to answer it if the answer would tend to criminate himself, it is only questions of that nature that he may refuse to answer. He is not to be permitted to interpose his constitutional immunity as a shield to every inquiry concerning his business, nor is his counsel to be permitted to delay or obstruct inquiry by making objections for bim. If he claims fiiat the answer to any question propounded would tend to criminate Mm, he cannot be compelled to answer. This claim, to be effective, should be made by the witness himself, hut the referee should notify him that a statement that such answer would tend to criminate him would, if false, subject him to a prosecution for perjury, as would any other false oath.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Naletsky

2. ““It may bo well contended tlmt the object designed to be accomplished by section 7 of the Bankruptcy Act, which requires the bankrupt to submit to an examination concerning the conduct of his business, -will be defeated, if the witness is thus permitted to refuse to testify concerning Ms dealings with his creditors and others, and such undoubtedly is the unfortunate result; hut it is for the Congress to provide, it it can, against such contingencies. * * * The courts cannot deprive a citizen of the constitutional right invoked by him for his protection upon any consideration of inconvenience or for the purpose of administering what it may regard as a salutary and useful law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Naletsky