Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 FSUPP2D 692 - United States v. Edwards

United States v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
6
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

6 district · 6 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 137 · 28 U.S.C. § 455

Relies on Liteky et al United States · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Patterson v. United States · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · United States v. Morgan

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An exemption from compulsory testimony is recognized in certain situations to protect the integrity and individual responsibility of governmental officials whose duties involve the exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial authority. * * * To allow certain exemptions to these officers is not to provide them with a blanket immunity from testimony. Like any testimonial "privilege," this one must be construed and applied with the greatest care for fear that it be misused or abused. And, indeed, the courts have been most scrupulous in delineating between protected and unprotected testimony on a case-by-case basis. In various instances and circumstances, judges, jurors, justices of the peace, and referees have been compelled to testify. * * * The essential line of demarcation appearing from the cases is that judicial and quasi-judicial officers may be compelled to testify only as to relevant matters of fact that do not probe into or compromise the mental processes employed in formulating the judgment in question.... Thus, even though a particular inquiry may be factually directed, it may still be objectionable if it invades upon an official's good-faith decision-making prerogatives. It is apparent, however, that this doctrine does not exempt compulsory testimony as to all factual matters related to those prerogatives.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Neither counsel nor a party may seek recusal of a judge by announcing that [he] intend[s] to call the judge as a witness.”
    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.