People v. Prater

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• witness is not required to prove that the response would actually incriminate him but, rather, to sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that an answer might result in an injurious disclosure
• witness is not required to prove that the response would actually incriminate him but, rather, to sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that an answer might result in an injurious disclosure

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Redd
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1990-03-22· cited 223×
• People v. Cooper
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1990-08-17· cited 21×
• People v. Dmitriyev
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1998-12-22· cited 6×
• People v. O'Malley
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2021-03-19· cited 1×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hoffman v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1951-05-28· cited 1,874×
• United States v. Emanuel Johnson
  First Circuit· 1973-12-20· cited 176×
• United States v. Brett C. Kimberlin
  Seventh Circuit· 1987-01-09· cited 107×
• People Ex Rel. Kunce v. Hogan
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1977-06-01· cited 75×
• Hogan v. Illinois ex rel. Kunce
  Supreme Court· 1978-01-09· cited 57×
• People Ex Rel. Kunce v. Hogan
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1976-04-19· cited 26×
• People v. Hartley
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1974-09-19· cited 17×
• People v. Thornton
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1983-12-30· cited 9×
• People v. Goodwin
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1986-10-09· cited 8×
• People v. Morales
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1981-12-23· cited 5×