Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 383 U.S. 234 - Stevens v. Marks

Stevens v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

164
cited by 164 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 3 district · 65 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 164 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2009 · most notably Kastigar v. United States (1972), County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen (1979)

36 federal appellate · 3 district · 65 state decisions — followed in 17 states

68019661970198019902000decided

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 · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · Counselman v. Hitchcock · Johnson 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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"A witness has, we think, a constitutional right to stand on the privilege against self-incrimination until it has been fairly demonstrated to him that an immunity, as broad in scope as the privilege it replaces, is available and applicable to him." [footnote omitted]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““* * * A State must affirmatively demonstrate to the witness that a valid immunity from prosecution is his before it may hold him in contempt for refusing to answer questions that would otherwise be incriminating. Whether the State has met its burden must be measured at the time of the alleged contempt. A declaration that there was a valid immunity uttered for the first time on appeal would come too late.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Even were we to assume, without deciding, that a State may constitutionally exact, on pain of loss of employment and in the absence of counsel, the waiver of a constitutional right, we would be unable to find any justification for denying the right to withdraw it.”
    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.