Quantum phase arises when a spin-j state is sent through a sequence of transitions that return it to its original position. For example with spin$-1/2$, a state picks up a complex phase of $\pi/4$ when it goes through three perpendicular (not orthogonal!) transitions:
$$\frac{\left\langle+z\middle\vert+y\right\rangle\left\langle+y \middle\vert+x\right\rangle\left\langle+x\middle\vert+z\right\rangle}{\vert\left\langle+z\middle\vert+y\right\rangle\left\langle+y\middle\vert+x\right\rangle\left\langle+x\middle\vert+z\right\rangle\vert} = e^{2i\pi/8}$$
where $\vert+y\rangle$ means the state with spin$-1/2$ in the $+y$ direction. Since the above path covers an octant, or one eighth of the surface of a sphere, the total quantum phase for the whole sphere in the spin$-1/2$ case is $2i\pi$.
More generally, for a spin state $\vert j,m,+z\rangle$, we will have
$$\frac{\left\langle j,m,+z\middle\vert j,m,+y\right\rangle\left\langle j,m,+y\middle\vert j,m,+x\right\rangle\left\langle j,m,+x\middle\vert j,m,+z\right\rangle}{\vert\left\langle j,m,+z\middle\vert j,m,+y\right\rangle\left\langle j,m,+y\middle\vert j,m,+x\right\rangle\left\langle j,m,+x\middle\vert j,m,+z\right\rangle \vert} = e^{2i n_{jm} \pi/8}$$
where $n_{jm}$ is an integer. The same phase is picked up for a spin$-1$ state with $m=1$, but a spin$-1$ state with $m=0$ picks up no phase at all. (In fact the m=0 states do not depend on the orientation.) At the moment, I believe that the $j=1,m=-1$ state will pick up $n=-1$ (in analogy with the spin$-1/2$ case), but I haven't bothered to actually run the computation.
Yes, Dr. Motl found it. For a journal reference see "Geometric Phases" by Péter Lévay. The appropriate equation is (36) on page 19. Note that our $m$ is his $r-J$.
http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0509064v1
Also, the method of looking at an infinitesimal rotation works because Berry-Pancharatnam phase doesn't depend on stuff like the arbitrary complex phases of spinors and of course there's no preferred region on the sphere of possible orientations for the spin axis.
As an aside, I was convinced that the $j=1$, $m=+-1$ case had the same coefficient as the $j=1/2,m=+-1/2$ case. This was because the geometric phase for light is the same as that for spin$-1/2$. But now it's clear that this is mixing apples and oranges.