Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 91 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Lefkowitz v. Turley.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lefkowitz v. Turley Anchor | green | “not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might …” | 22 |
| 2 | Lefkowitz v. Turley | green | “not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.” | 17 |
| 3 | Lisenba v. California | green | “free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer.” | 14 |
| 4 | Lefkowitz v. Turley | green | “the amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the …” | 11 |
| 5 | Lefkowitz v. Cunningham | green | “public employees may constitutionally be discharged for refusing to answer potentially incriminating questions concerning their official duties if they have not been required to surrender their constitutional immunity.” | 6 |
| 6 | In Re DL | green | “a finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” | 6 |
| 7 | United States v. Balsys | green | “in which the witness reasonably believes that the information sought, or discoverable as a result of his testimony, could be used in a subsequent state or federal criminal proceeding.” | 5 |
| 8 | Lonnie Benjamin and Harold Hicken v. The City of Montgomery | green | “we cannot require public employees to speculate whether their statements will later be excluded under garrity.” | 4 |
| 9 | Floyd D. Arrington v. County of Dallas, Jack Richardson, Timothy Hammond v. County of Dallas, Jack Richardson and Rick Richardson | green | “employee's rights are imperilled only by the combined risks of both compelling the employee to answer incriminating questions and compelling the employee to waive immunity from the use of those answers.” | 3 |
| 10 | Floyd D. Arrington v. County of Dallas, Jack Richardson, Timothy Hammond v. County of Dallas, Jack Richardson and Rick Richardson | green | “the government's mere failure to tender immunity cannot amount to an attempt to compel a waiver of immunity.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.