State v. Berg’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Campbell v. Superior Court (1971), Prucha v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1961)
35 state decisions
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 Rochin v. People of California · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Holt v. United States · Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey · People v. Defore
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself, * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘Production or Inspection of Documents and Chattels. 1. It follows that the production of documents or chattels by a person (whether ordinary witness or party-witness) in response to a subpoena, or a motion to order production, or to other form of process treating him as a witness (i. e., as a person appearing before the tribunal to furnish testimony on his moral responsibility for truth-telling), may be refused under the protection of the privilege; and this is universally conceded. For though the disclosure thus sought be not oral in form, and though the documents or chattels be already in existence and not desired to be first written and created by testimonial act or utterance of the person in response to the process, still no line can be drawn short of any process which treats him as a witness; because in virtue of it he would be at any time liable to make oath to the authenticity or origin of the articles produced.’ ” State v. Berg, 76 Ariz. at 100 , 259 P.2d at 264 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The . . . provision of our constitution is in substance the same as one of the immunities guaranteed under the provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Every state in the Union has similar provisions with the exception of Iowa and New Jersey. Although slightly different in the language employed the courts uniformly hold that their meaning and purpose are the same. While there is a divergence of authority on the scope of evidence intended to be embraced in this' constitutional immunity the better rule, we believe, is that it is limited primarily to testimonial compulsion, i. e., ‘to extract from the person’s own lips an admission of his guilt.’ ” ( 259 P.2d 263 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thomason
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.