United States v. Orta’s Empirical Analysis
253 F.2d 312 · 1958
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1982 · most notably United States v. Mandujano (1976), United States v. Winter (1965)
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
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 Glickstein v. United States · United States v. Scully · In re Fried · United States v. Parker · Centracchio v. Garrity
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A grand jury witness) might answer truthfully and thereafter assert the constitutional guaranty. Under no circumstances, however, could he commit perjury and successfully claim that the Constitution afforded him protection from prosecution for that crime. As said in Glickstein v. United States ( 222 U.S. 139 , 142, 32 S.Ct. 71, 73, 56 L.Ed. 128 (1911),) '. . . the immunity afforded by the constitutional guaranty relates to the past, and does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is no showing that the Grand Jury before which Orta testified was seeking to indict him or any other person already identified,””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In United States v. Scully, 2 Cir., 1955, 225 F.2d 113, 116 , the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held: <•» * * the mere possibility that the witness may later be indicted furnishes no basis for requiring that he be advised of his rights under the Fifth Amendment, when summoned to give testimony before a Grand Jury.’ ””
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.