28 Wash. App. 524 - Eastham v. Arndt’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably 126 Wash. 2d 283 - State v. Hobble (1995), King v. Olympic Pipeline Co. (2001)
29 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 Malloy v. Hogan · Kastigar v. United States · Hoffman v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Counselman v. Hitchcock
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[t]he privilege [against self-incrimination] not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a ... criminal statute but likewise embraces those [answers] which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a ... crime."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“must establish a factual predicate from which the court can, by use of `reasonable judicial imagination' (aided by suggestions of counsel), conceive of a sound basis for the claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embrace those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.... To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result. The trial judge in appraising the claim “must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.” [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]”
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.