Case Citator › Counselman v. Hitchcock

Counselman v. Hitchcock

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
142 U.S. 547
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
54 of 54
Citing cases (total)
54
Treatment dates
1970–1972
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Counselman v. Hitchcock is limited on the immunity needed to compel testimony. Kastigar v. United States held that protection against both use of the testimony and use of evidence derived from it suffices; immunity from prosecution is unnecessary.
More on how this was screened

Counselman's ruling that a ban on direct use alone is inadequate remains valid. An earlier Second Circuit decision also declined to extend Counselman's rule for jailing an uncooperative witness to dismissal of a public employee. All 54 flagged citations have been read; the two confirmed adverse 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.

54 later cases cite Counselman v. Hitchcock; 54 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 Counselman v. Hitchcock?

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

Limited

  • The Second Circuit declined to extend Counselman's immunity standard for jailing a witness to dismissal of a public employee who refused to answer questions about official conduct.

    Uniformed Sanitation Men Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York · Second Circuit · filed

    Even if use immunity should ultimately be held insufficient in the Counselman situation, which we in no way intimate, there would be sufficient reasons to support a less stringent requirement with respect to immunity where the issue is not whether a witness should be put in jail until he answers but whether a public employee should be dismissed for refusing to give an account of his official conduct.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court held that use and derivative use immunity suffices to compel testimony, confining Counselman's broader demand for immunity from prosecution to nonbinding language.

    Kastigar v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We hold that such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. ... The broad language in Counselman relied upon by petitioners was unnecessary to the Court’s decision, and cannot be considered binding authority.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Counselman v. Hitchcock 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