Sherwin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
268 U.S. 369 · 1925
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1973 · most notably 53 Ill. 2d 332 - People v. Crawford Distributing Co. (1973), Goodman v. United States (1960)
16 federal appellate · 4 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Counselman v. Hitchcock · Brown v. Walker · Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co. · Heike 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing documentary evidence before the commission or in obedience to the subpoena of the commission on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to (in)criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no natural person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before the commission in obedience to a subpoena, issued by it: Provided, That no natural person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The immediate question here is whether, under this particular immunity provision, the mere furnishing of information of whatever character creates an immunity which bars the prosecution. Compare Tucker v. United States, 151 U.S. 164 , 167, 169, 14 S.Ct. 299 , 38 L.Ed. 112 . “The question is said to be one of statutory construction. But, upon the facts stated, it is clear that there was no basis for the plea of immunity. The act grants immunity only when the person testifies or produces evidence ‘before the commission in obedience to a subpoena issued by it.’ Sherwin and Schwartz did nothing in obedience to a subpoena. None was issued.””
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.