Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 F.2d 149 - In re Neff

In re Neff’s Empirical Analysis

206 F.2d 149 · 1953

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021 · most notably Emspak v. United States (1955), Ellis v. United States (1969)

31 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 20 states

20019531960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act)

Relies on Hoffman v. United States · Bain Jr · Blau v. United States · Arndstein v. McCarthy · Coblentz v. State

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

  1. “[i]t is settled by the overwhelming weight of authority that a person who has waived his privilege of silence in one trial or proceeding is not estopped to assert it as to the same matter in a subsequent trial or proceeding.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Indeed [Neffs] case is a striking illustration of the importance of the rule in preserving the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. For between the time of the defendant’s testimony before the grand jury and her claim of privilege at Valentino’s trial she had been convicted of perjury before the grand jury and had been sentenced to a total of ten years’ imprisonment. Thus the setting in which the questions were asked of her had greatly changed and she could well have had apprehensions as to the incriminating effect of her requested testimony which she did not have on the earlier occasion.”
    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.