128 F. Supp. 617 - In Re Ullman’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1978
8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2385 · 18 U.S.C. § 3486 (§ 248 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 2011 (Atomic Energy Act of 1954) · 50 U.S.C. § 781 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Hines v. Davidowitz · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Crowell v. Benson · Counselman v. Hitchcock
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The proposed substitute amendment provides careful and detailed procedures which obviate even the remotest possibility of an “immunity bath”. First, in all instances where a grant of immunity is authorized the witness himself must claim his privilege against self-incrimination ; thus the committee and the Attorney General are immediately put on notice that a serious and important decision has been placed upon them. There is then the opportunity to acquire the necessary background and facts upon which to predicate a raise decision as to whether or not immunity should be granted. [Emphasis added] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 83rd Cong.2d Sess.1954, Yol. 2, p. 3064. * * :H # * Finally, before the immunity is actually granted to the witness, the approval of the United States district court wherein the inquiry is being conducted is to be obtained. The court in reaching its decision will have the aid of the views and facts of both the congressional committee and the Attorney General. The mere recital of these required procedures should cleai'ly indicate that the possibility of an “immunity bath” is definitely eliminated. In cases before a grand jury or a court, similar precaution exists. In such instances, if a United States attorney decides that in an authorized matter, immunity should be granted to a witness who has claimed his privilege, that prosecutor, having adjudged such testimony to be necessary in the public interest, must first obtain the approval of the Attorney General f”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[It is urged] that the [federal immunity] act is unconstitutional in that it requires the court to perform a non-judicial function. * * * that the court is called upon to approve the application for the grant * * *. Thus [it is urged] that the ultimate determination of whether immunity should be granted * * * rests with the court, thereby requiring it to exercise a power that is exclusively either legislative or executive; that for the court to make such determination does violence to the separation of powers * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether . . . a power in the court to approve a grant of immunity offends constitutional limitations,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.