Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 NY2D 354 - Steinbrecher v. Wapnick

Steinbrecher v. Wapnick’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
6
states following
March 2006
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably Mahne v. Mahne (1974), First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Schamanek (1984)

4 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

11019691970198019902000decided

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 Griffin v. California · Rogers v. United States · Spevack v. Klein · Brown v. United States · Gardner v. Broderick

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

  1. “no choice but to appear and face questions chosen by his opponent solely for the latter's benefit.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““* * * when a witness voluntarily testifies, the privilege against self-incrimination is amply respected without need of accepting testimony freed from the antiseptic test of the adversary process. The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry. Such a witness has the choice, after weighing the advantage of the privilege against self-incrimination against the advantage of putting forward his version of the facts and his reliability as a witness, not to testify at all. * * * Petitioner, as a party to the suit, was a voluntary witness. She could not take the stand to testify in her own behalf and also claim the right to be free from cross-examination on matters raised by her own testimony on direct examination.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Since the sole purpose of the privilege is to shield a witness against the incriminating effects of his testimony, the courts will not permit its use as a weapon to unfairly prejudice an adversary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.