State v. Springer’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 1990 · most notably United States v. Allsup (1977), State v. Latham & York (1962)
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
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 State v. Hooper · State v. Stewart · State of Kansas v. Roberts · Bailey v. Turner · State v. Molz
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The constitutional guaranty is that an accused shall be tried by an impartial jury. The matter of peremptory challenges is merely statutory machinery for carrying out and securing the constitutional guaranty. Error in overruling a challenge to a juror is not ground for reversal unless the accused was prejudiced thereby. The real question is — Was the jury which tried the defendant composed of impartial members? In the absence of any objection on the part of defendant to any member as it was finally drawn to try him we cannot say it was not impartial.” (Emphasis added) Springer at 948.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The determination of the question whether a prospective juror is qualified to sit in a case is a trial of that question to the court. (R. S. 62-1410). The trial court’s decision on that question will not be disturbed on appeal unless disqualification appears as a matter of law, or it is disclosed that there has been an abuse of the court’s discretion. (State v. Stewart, 85 Kan. 404, 116 Pac. 489 .) It is the mind of the court which must be satisfied that the challenged juror is free from bias and prejudice.’ (Morton v. The State, 1 Kan. 468, 472 .) (See, also, State v. Molz, 91 Kan. 901 , 139 Pac. 376 ; State v. Mullins, 95 Kan. 280 , syl. ¶ 6, 147 Pac. 828 ; State v. Tucker, 137 Kan. 84, 91 , 19 P. 2d 346 .)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Williams“. While our statutes contemplate the use of peremptory challenges on jurors qualified for cause, error in the court’s ruling on a challenge for cause, especially if the soundness of the ruling is seriously debatable, should not re- ' quire- a reversal of judgment of conviction, if in fact, as here, the defendant had a trial before an impartial jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hoy
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.