Wassum v. Feeney’s Empirical Analysis
1876
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1957 · most notably Kohl v. Lehlback (1895), In re Morrissey (1890)
6 federal appellate · 32 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 Ex Parte Neal · Gupp v. Brown · Woodward v. Dean · Briggs v. Town of Georgia · State v. Babcock
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a party has had an opportunity of challenge, no disqualification of a juror entitles him to a new trial after verdict. This convenient and necessary rule has been applied by this court, not. only to a juror disqualified by interest or relation, Jeffries v. Randall, 14 Mass. 205 ; Woodward v. Dean, 113 Mass. 297 ; but, even in a capital case, to a juror who was not of the county or vicinage, as required by the Constitution. Declaration of Eights, art. 13; Anon., cited by Jackson, J., in 1 Pick. 41 , 42. The same rule has been applied by other courts to disqualification by reason of alienage, although not in fact known until after verdict. Hollingsworth v. Duane, 4 Dall. 353 ; S. C. Wall. C. C. 147; State v. Quarrel, 2 Bay, 150 ; Presbury v. Commonwealth, 9 Dana, 203 ; The King v. Sutton, 8 B. & C. 417; S. C., nom., The King v. Despard, 2 Man. & Ry. 406. In the Case of the Chelsea Waterworks Co., 10 Exch. 731, Baron Parke said: ‘ In the case of a trial by jury de medietate linguae, which by the 47th section of the jury act is expressly reserved to an alien, he may not know whether proper persons are on the jury; yet if he was found guilty, and sentenced to death, the verdict would not be set aside because he was tried by improper persons, for he ought .to have .challenged them.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kohl v. Lehlback
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.