United States v. Murdock’s Empirical Analysis
284 U.S. 141 · 1931
Citation profile
256 federal appellate · 36 district · 95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 589 later decisions (78 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Kastigar v. United States (1972), United States v. Jorn (1971)
256 federal appellate · 36 district · 95 state decisions — followed in 23 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 26 U.S.C. § 1257
Relies on Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Counselman v. Hitchcock · Logan v. United States · Brown v. Walker · United States v. Oppenheimer
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 589 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * This court has held that immunity against state prosecution is not essential to the validity of federal statutes declaring that a witness shall not be excused from giving evidence on the ground that it will incriminate him, and also that the lack of state power to give witnesses protection against federal prosecution does not defeat a state immunity statute. The principle established is that full and complete immunity against prosecution by the government compelling the witness to answer is equivalent to the protection furnished by the rule against compulsory self-incrimination. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 , 12 S.Ct. 195 , 35 L.Ed. 1110 ; Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 606 , 16 S.Ct. 644 , 40 L.Ed. 819 . Jack v. Kansas, 199 U.S. 372, 381 , 26 S.Ct. 73 , 50 L.Ed. 234 . Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 68 , 26 S.Ct. 370 , 50 L.Ed. 652 . * * * ””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is solely for the benefit, of the witness,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"A special plea in bar is appropriate where defendant claims former acquittal, former conviction, or pardon (2 Bishop New Criminal Procedure [2d Ed.] §§ 742, 799, 805 et seq.) but there is no warrant for its use to single out for determination in advance of trial matters of defense either on questions of law or fact. * * * [S]uch a practice is inconsistent with prompt and effective administration of the law and is likely to result in numerous hearings, waste of courts' time, and unnecessary delays * * *."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dixon
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.