Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 Misc. 2d 161 - Levine v. Bornstein

13 Misc. 2d 161 - Levine v. Bornstein’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
14
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Manufacturing Co. (1973), Black Panther Party v. Smith (1981)

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 14 states

2201958196019701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Ullmann v. United States · Quinn v. United States · Franklin v. Franklin · People Ex Rel. Taylor v. . Forbes · Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"* * * However, an examination of the above and other reported cases on the subject reveals that the privilege was always claimed by a non-party witness or by a defendant in court involuntarily, seeking only to defend. It does not follow that the protection of the privilege should be expanded to shield a plaintiff who with one hand seeks affirmative relief in court and with the other refuses to answer otherwise pertinent and proper questions which may have a bearing upon his right to maintain his action. To uphold this inconsistent position would enable the plaintiff to use the privilege as an instrument of attack."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The plaintiff . . . obviously had the right to claim the privilege, but he cannot eat his cake and have it too. The defendant also has certain rights, one of which is to defend this lawsuit and to develop an affirmative defense which may well destroy the plaintiff’s right to maintain Ms action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.