Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 Vt. 496 - State v. Pelican

State v. Pelican’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2019

14 state decisions

80199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1863

Relies on Hamling v. United States · Taylor v. Louisiana · Duren v. Missouri · Castaneda v. Partida · Lockhart v. McCree

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We conclude that the majority holdings are well reasoned. We are particularly concerned that group definitions like those involved here are arbitrary such that some attitudes of members within the group may be greatly dissimilar, while, at the same time, many group members share attitudes with those outside the group. Nevertheless, we agree with the Georgia Supreme Court that we cannot say that an age-defined group can never be found to be distinctive. See Parks v. State, 254 Ga. [403] at 411, 330 S.E. 2d [686] at 694. The record must, however, respond to the first two grounds for denying that age-defined groups are distinctive. [ Ibid. ]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) the group must be defined and limited by some clearly identifiable factor (such as race or sex), (2) there must be a common thread or basic similarity in attitude, ideas or experience which runs through members of the group, and (3) there must be a community of interest among the members of the group to the extent that the group’s interest cannot be adequately represented if the group is excluded from the jury selection process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) The parameters of the group are difficult to ascertain and, as a result, varying age limits are used in the claims; (2) The defendant has not proved that the values and attitudes of the group are substantially different from other segments of the community or that the values and attitudes of members of the group are cohesive and consistent; and (3) The membership of the group is in flux.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.