Arndstein v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis
254 U.S. 71 · 1920
Citation profile
133 federal appellate · 30 district · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 344 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966), Fay v. Noia (1963)
133 federal appellate · 30 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 21 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
Relies on Counselman v. Hitchcock · Brown v. Walker · People Ex Rel. Taylor v. . Forbes · Dyke v. . Spargur
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 344 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The schedules, standing alone, did not amount to an admission of guilt or furnish clear proof of crime, and the mere filing of them did not constitute a waiver of the right to stop short whenever the bankrupt could fairly claim that to answer might tend to incriminate him.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ Fifth Amendment. ‘This provision must have a broad construction in favor of the right which it was intended to secure.’ ‘The object was to insure that a person should not be compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation, to give testimony which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime.’ Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 , 562, 12 S.Ct. 195 , 197, 35 L.Ed. 1110 . “The protection of the Constitution was not removed by the provision in section 7 of the Bankruptcy Act [ 11 U.S.C.A. § 25 ] : ‘No testimony given by him shall be offered in evidence against him in any criminal proceeding.’ ‘It could not and would not prevent the use of his testimony to search out other testimony to be used in evidence against him or his property.’ Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 564 , 12 S.Ct. page 198, 35 L.Ed. 1110 .””
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.