Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 661 F.2d 1145 - In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation

In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

661 F.2d 1145 · 1981

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy (1983), Rechtzigel v. Commissioner (1982)

14 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

3001981199020002010decided

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 United States v. Nixon · Kastigar v. United States · Branzburg v. Hayes · Hoffman v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

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

  1. “We find no justification for limiting the historic protections of the Fifth Amendment by creating an exception to the general rule which would nullify the privilege whenever it appears that the government would not undertake to prosecute. Such a rule would require the trial court, in each case, to assess the practical possibility that prosecution would result from incriminatory answers. Such assessment is impossible to make because it depends on the discretion exercised by a United States Attorney or his successor.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “a judge's prediction as to the likelihood of a prosecutor filing an indictment is not dispositive in ascertaining the permissible scope of a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “validity of the privilege cannot be grounded on a district court's prediction of the likelihood of prosecution”
    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.