State v. Durrant’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch (1994), State v. Johnson (2008)
2 federal appellate · 82 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1905 · 26 U.S.C. § 4401
Relies on Hoffman v. United States · Leary v. United States · Marchetti v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Grosso 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"For a statutory grant of immunity to be coextensive with the privilege against self-incrimination, it must grant not only use immunity, or protection from the direct use of compelled incriminatory information, but also derivative-use immunity, which prohibits use of any such information for investigatory purposes leading to other evidence of criminal activity."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re JL · State v. Garza“[A] statute is presumed constitutional and all doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity. If there is any reasonable way to construe a statute as constitutionally valid, the court must do so. A statute must clearly violate the constitution before it may be struck down.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(3) Payments required by this chapter shall be made to the commission on forms provided by the commission. (4)(a) A dealer is not required to give his name, address, Social Security number, or other identifying information on the form. (b)The commission or its employees may not reveal any facts contained in any report, form, or return required by this chapter or any information obtained from a dealer. (c) None of the information contained in a report, form, or return or otherwise obtained from a dealer in connection with this section may be used against the dealer in any criminal proceeding unless it is independently obtained, except in connection with a proceeding involving taxes due under this chapter from the dealer making the return. This subsection supersedes any provision to the contrary. (d) A person who discloses information in violation of this subsection is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.”
2 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.