In re Hess’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. ““When a witness is before the court in a proceeding, and a question is propounded, it must appear to the court, from the circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence which the witness is called to give, that there is reasonable ground to apprehend danger to tho witness from being compelled to answer, to entitle him to the privilege of silence; and, when the fact of the witness being in danger be once made apparent to the court, great latitude should be allowed to him in judging for himself of the effect, of any particular question. Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 599 , 16 Sup. Ct. 648 , 40 L. Ed. 819 . ‘The object of the law is to afford to a party called upon to give evidence in a proceeding, inter alios, protection against being brought by means of his own evidence within tho penalties of the law. But it would be to convert a salutary protection into a means of abuse, if it were to bo held that a mere imaginary possibility of danger, however remote and improbable, was sufficient to justify the withholding of evidence essential to the ends of justice.’ Brown v. Walker, supra. This being the practice when witnesses are called to testify and claim their privilege, it is equally important, under the Bankrupt Law, that the court should pass upon the probability of .danger to the bankrupt when he pleads his constitutional privilege, upon a demand made by a trustee in bankruptcy for him to deliver his books and papers as required by that act. Where, under these circumstance”

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

2. ““Where a bankrupt pleads bis constitutional privilege against a production of books of accounts alleged to contain incriminating evidence, be should be required to bring such books and papers either before tbe court or referee in bankruptcy for determination of tbe question whether tbe plea is well founded in fact, and for tbe making of an order for tbe protection of the bankrupt from tbe discovery of such evidence, and, if possible, to enable tbe trustee to obtain other necessary information from such books.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Hark