Hoffman Can Corp’s Empirical Analysis
373 F.2d 622 · 1967
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 1996 · most notably United States v. Neff (1980), In Re Myron Farber (1978)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 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.
Relationships
Relies on Malloy v. Hogan · Hoffman v. United States · United States v. Sullivan · Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board · William Ensign v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania No 123 Charles a Ensign
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he traditional view has been that the witness, in order to avoid liability for contempt on the basis of his refusal to answer, may be required to provide sufficient information on which the court may find that a real danger of incrimination exists. This limited requirement of disclosure as a condition of invoking the privilege clearly poses some danger to the interests the privilege is designed to protect. The classic defense of it was stated by Judge Learned Hand: “The ... questions were on their face innocent, and it lay upon the defendant to show that the answers might criminate him.... Obviously a witness may not be compelled to do more than show that the answer is likely to be dangerous to him, else he would be forced to disclose those very facts which the privilege protects. Logically, indeed, he is boxed in a paradox, for he must prove the criminatory character of what it is his privilege to protect because it is criminatory. The only practicable solution is to be content with the door’s being set a little ajar, and while at times this no doubt partially destroys the privilege ... nothing better is available.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“could not possibly be incrimination no matter how broadly the privilege is construed,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is bound ultimately to beget a requirement of maximum disclosure to prove the right to the privilege, in contrast to a proceeding in open court where the disclosure may be (interrupted) at the point where the right to the privilege becomes clear to the judge. In any event, the history of the privilege itself contains its own condemnation of a procedure in camera.”
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.