State v. Rivers’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 32 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 77 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Garrity v. State of New Jersey · Minnesota v. Murphy · Roberts 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 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]or purposes of [the penalty] exception, one must distinguish situations where a person will be penalized for the very act of asserting the privilege {e.g., the person will lose their job if they assert the privilege, regardless of the other evidence in the case) from situations where a person is free to assert the privilege but they then run the risk that, based on the remaining evidence, the court or administrative agency will decide the ease against them. The exception applies only to the former situation, not the latter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.