United States v. Royal’s Empirical Analysis
174 F.3d 1 · 1999
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 14 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably 29 Cal. 4th 833 - People v. Burgener (2003), Berghuis v. Smith (2010)
21 federal appellate · 14 district · 12 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 Hamling v. United States · Taylor v. Louisiana · Duren v. Missouri · Peters v. Kiff · Holland v. Illinois
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]here is no dispute that Royal has satisfied the first prong of [the Duren] test; blacks are unquestionably a 'distinctive' group for the purpose of a fair cross-section analysis.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ajbsolute disparity measures the difference between the percentage of members of the distinctive group in the relevant population and the percentage of group members [i]n the jury [veni-re].... In contrast, comparative disparity measures the diminished likelihood that members of an underrepresented group, when compared to the population as a whole, will be called for jury service .... It is calculated by dividing the ’ absolute disparity percentage by the percentage of the group in the population.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.