Pixley v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 district · 14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Kastigar v. United States · Hoffman v. United States · Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. · Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women Voters of California · Oscar v. University Students Cooperative Ass'n
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a witness, directly or through counsel, declares his intent to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and the party who had intended to call the witness challenges whether the privilege has been properly invoked, the trial judge must make an informed determination whether the witness has established a real risk that his testimony could possibly tend to incriminate him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[b]ecause an individual's right to be free from self-incrimination is a fundamental principle secured by the Fifth Amendment and by art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the privilege is to be liberally construed in favor of the person claiming it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“perfectly clear from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case that the witness is mistaken, and that the answer[s] cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate.”
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.