Ullmann v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
667 federal appellate · 54 district · 379 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,544 later decisions (115 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966), Kastigar v. United States (1972)
667 federal appellate · 54 district · 379 state decisions — followed in 36 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Ullmann (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Boyd v. United States · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Hines v. Davidowitz · Hoffman v. United States
Cited together with Kastigar v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Counselman v. Hitchcock · Brown v. Walker · Hoffman 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 1,544 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Time has not shown that protection from the evils against which this safeguard was directed is needless or unwarranted. This constitutional protection must not be interpreted in a hostile or niggardly spirit.”
79 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whenever in the judgment of a United States Attorney the testimony of any witness * * * in any case or proceeding before any grand jury * * * involving any violation of this chapter or any of the offenses enumerated in Section 2516 * * * is necessary to the public interest, such United States Attorney, upon the approval of the Attorney General, shall make application to the court that the witness shall be instructed to testify * * * and upon order of the court such witness shall not be excused from testifying * * * on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or - subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. * * * ””
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * and any person subpoenaed or testifying in connection with any matter under investigation under this chapter shall have the same rights, privileges, and immunities and be subject to the same duties, liabilities, and penalties as though such matter arose under chapter 1 of this title, * * *” Section 46 4 provides in part: “No person shall be excused from attending and testifying * * * in any cause or proceeding, criminal or otherwise, based upon or growing out of any alleged violation of chapter 1 of this title on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him, may tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no 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 * * * in any such case or proceeding: * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.