Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 F.3d 1052 - Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass'n

Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis

112 F.3d 1052 · 1997

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
4
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Thompson v. Paul (2008), White v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

1601997200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Smith v. Phillips · McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood · Tinsley v. Borg · United States v. Boney · United States v. Rahm

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) [W]here the juror is apprised of such prejudicial information about the defendant that the court deems it highly unlikely that he can exercise independent judgment even if the juror states he will[;] (2)[t]he existence of certain relationships between the juror and the defendant[;] (3) where a juror or his close relatives have been personally involved in a situation involving a similar fact pattern[;] and (4) where it is revealed ‘that the juror is an actual employee of the prosecuting agency, that the juror is a close relative of one of the participants in the trial ... or that the juror was a witness or somehow involved in the [underlying] transaction’[.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury does not require an absolute bar on felon-jurors. The touchstone of the guarantee of an impartial jury is protection against juror bias. A per se rule would be appropriate only if one could reasonably conclude that felons are always biased against one party or another.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[T]he Sixth Amendment does not absolutely bar felon-jurors. Rather, the appropriate remedy for an allegation of juror bias is to hold an evidentiary hearing in order to determine whether the juror's failure to disclose his felon status resulted in `actual bias' to the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.