Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 Wash. 2d 109 - State v. Carroll

83 Wash. 2d 109 - State v. Carroll’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
7
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2020

21 state decisions

110197319801990200020102020decided

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 Malloy v. Hogan · Kastigar v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Counselman v. Hitchcock · Brown v. Walker

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

  1. ““Before or during trial in any judicial proceeding a justice of the supreme court or judge of the district court, upon request by the attorney prosecuting or counsel for the defense, may require a person to answer any question or produce any evidence that may incriminate him. If a person is required to give testimony or produce evidence, in accordance with this section, in any investigation or proceeding he cannot be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture, other than a prosecution or action for perjury or contempt, for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he testified or produced evidence.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Every person offending against any of the provisions of law relating to bribery or corruption shall be a competent witness against another so offending and shall not be excused from giving testimony tending to criminate himself.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “requiring the witness under such circumstances to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination would be requiring the performance of a useless act”
    2 later decisions 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.