Case Citator › Adamson v. California

Adamson v. California

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
332 U.S. 46
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
30 of 30
Citing cases (total)
30
Treatment dates
1964–1965
Overruled
A reviewed court has overruled this case. Adamson v. California has been overruled. All 30 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Malloy v. Hogan rejected Adamson's ruling that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not bind states, and Griffin v. California rejected California's practice of commenting on an accused's silence. The Supreme Court later described Malloy as “overruling Adamson, 332 U. S. 46, and Twining, 211 U. S. 78” in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

30 later cases cite Adamson v. California; 30 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Adamson v. California?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled

  • The Supreme Court rejected Adamson's holding that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not bind states.

    Malloy v. Hogan · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In this case we are asked to reconsider prior decisions holding that the privilege against self-incrimination is not safeguarded against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78; Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46.1 ... We hold today that the Fifth Amendment’s exception from compulsory self-incrimination is also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court rejected the California rule Adamson had upheld, forbidding prosecutors and judges to treat an accused's silence as evidence of guilt.

    Griffin v. California · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    And see Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, 50, n. 6, 67 S. Ct. 1672, 1674, 91 L. Ed. 1903; ... The question remains whether, statute or not, the comment rule, approved by California, violates the Fifth Amendment. We think it does.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Adamson v. California and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace