Counselman v. Hitchcock’s Empirical Analysis
142 U.S. 547 · 1892
Citation profile
617 federal appellate · 179 district · 791 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,206 later decisions (269 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966), Katz v. United States (1967)
617 federal appellate · 179 district · 791 state decisions — followed in 50 states
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 Boyd v. United States · Galpin v. Page · Cuddy · McCormick v. Sullivant
Cited together with Brown v. Walker · Hoffman v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Kastigar v. United States · Ullmann v. United States
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 2,206 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must have a broad construction in favor of the right which it was intended to secure.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * it is clearly recognized that the giving of testimony and the attendance upon court or grand jury in order to testify are public duties which every person within the jurisdiction of the government is bound to perform upon being properly summoned * * *. The duty, so onerous at times, yet so necessary to the administration of justice according to the forms and modes established in our system of government [citing] is subject to mitigation in exceptional circumstances; there is a constitutional exemption from being compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself, entitling the witness to be excused from answering anything that will tend to incriminate him [citing]; some confidential matters are shielded from considerations of policy, and perhaps in other cases for special reasons a witness may be excused from telling all that he knows. “But, aside from exceptions and qualifications * * * the witness is bound not only to attend but to tell what he knows in answer to questions framed for the purpose of bringing out the truth of the matter under inquiry. * * * “He is not entitled to set limits to the investigation that the grand jury may conduct. The Fifth Amendment and the statutes relative to the organization of grand juries recognize such a jury as being possessed of the same powers that pertained to its British prototype, and in our system examination of witnesses by a grand jury need not be preceded by a formal charge against a particular individual. Hal”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is quite clear that legislation cannot abridge a constitutional privilege, and that it cannot replace or supply one, at least unless it is so broad as to have the same extent in scope and effect. * * * 15 "We are clearly of opinion that no statute which leaves the party or witness subject to prosecution after he answers the criminating question put to him, can have the effect of supplanting the privilege conferred by the constitution of the United States. * * * In view of the constitutional provision, a statutory enactment, to be valid, must afford absolute immunity against future prosecution for the offense to which the question relates.”
17 later decisions 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.