United States v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
185 F.2d 617 · 1950
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 5
Relies on Counselman v. Hitchcock · United States v. Monia · Mason v. United States · United States v. Weisman · United States v. Zwillman
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the relationship between possible admissions in answer to the questions . . . and the proscription of [pertinent federal criminal statutes (18 IT. S. C. §§ 371, 1501)] would need to be much closer for us to conclude that there was real danger in answering.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“should have adverted to the fact of common knowledge that there exists a class of persons who live by activity prohibited by federal criminal laws and that some of these persons would be summoned as witnesses in this grand jury investigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the witness here failed to give the judge any information which would allow the latter to rule intelligently on the claim of privilege for the witness simply refused to say anything and gave no facts to show why he refused to say anything.”
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.