Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 449 F.2d 32 - Korman 1971

Korman 1971’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
March 1992
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1992

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

50197019801990decided

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 Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Counselman v. Hitchcock · Brown v. Walker · Ullmann 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Appellants have argued at some length that section 6002 is unconstitutional because, while it prohibits the use in "any criminal case" of any evidence obtained under the compulsion of an immunity grant, it does not expressly proscribe the use of compelled testimony or its fruits in proceedings to impose fines, penalties or forfeitures. That argument is without merit. The language of the statute simply repeats verbatim the language of the fifth amendment in that regard and must be read as incorporating the attendant judicial glosses on the constitutional language. Accordingly, the statute as written prohibits the use of compelled testimony and its fruits in proceedings to impose fines, penalties or forfeitures which are criminal in nature for fifth amendment purposes.”
    2 later decisions 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.