Loubriel v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
9 F.2d 807 · 1926
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Bryan (1950), Brown v. United States (1959)
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 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 Anderson v. Dunn · Ex parte Hudgings · Craig v. Hecht · Cameron v. United States · Marshall v. Gordon
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question is no less than whether courts must put up with shifts and subterfuges in the place of truth and are powerless to put an end to trifling. They would prove themselves incapable of dealing with actualities if it were so, for there is no surer sign of a feeble and fumbling law than timidity in penetrating the form to the substance.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““Nor does it make any difference that the order of committal gave him leave to purge himself before another grand jury. Each investigation is separate and independent; it terminates with the grand jury which undertakes it, and the next does not take it up as unfinished business. The order, if it could be construed as a direction to testify before another grand jury, would have been void. * * * “* * * But the subpeona did not require his attendance before any other than the September grand jury. When that body adjourned, Loubriel was under no further duty to testify, and could, of course, be no longer compelled to discharge a duty which had ended.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sheridan““* * * We do not mean necessarily to include a second and independent hearing, even though concerned with the same subject. Whether or not one may then claim a privilege by virtue of the peril from his earlier testimony we do not say. In Daniels v. United States, 196 F. 459 (C. C. A. 6) 116 C. C. A. 233 , so much was said obiter, and Cameron v. United States, 231 U. S. 710 , 34 S. Ct. 244 , 58 L. Ed. 448 , is not to the contrary. But there is a clear distinction between a single inquiry and succeeding ones; as to the first there is no doubt.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. DeCola
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.