Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 So. 2d 815 - Black v. State

187 So. 2d 815 - Black v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
April 1994
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 1994

16 state decisions

1101966197019801990decided

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 Swain v. State of Alabama · Brown v. Allen · Rodriguez v. New York · Hernandez v. Texas · Cassell v. Texas

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

  1. “"No judge of any court shall preside on the trial of any cause, where the parties or either of them, shall be connected with him by affinity or consanguinity, or where he may be interested in the same, except by the consent of the judge and of the parties."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “qualified persons of good intelligence, sound judgment, and fair character”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The judge is not the only one concerned in the just and correct course of justice. Nor, indeed, are the litigants the only ones to be consulted. The public generally have [sic] the right to feel that there is no favoritism in the courthouse; that there all men stand equal before the law, and that there justice will be dispensed to all with an even hand. The fact that the judge may be unconscious of any bias, and may be sure that interest or relationship could not dispose him to favor one side or the other, is not enough. The unsuccessful litigant has also the right to know that the decision was the offspring of a fair and impartial mind, and this satisfying assurance he cannot have if there are before his eyes facts or circumstances reasonably sufficient to create the belief that influences outside of the record operated in making the decision. ( 305 Ky. at 215 , 203 S.W.2d at 12-13 ).”
    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.