Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 193 TENN 222 - Estep v. State

Estep v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
June 1996
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1996

8 state decisions

3019511960197019801990decided

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 Hughes v. State · Sparks v. State · United States v. Davis · Mahon v. State · Mann v. State

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

  1. ““It is settled law in this State that the ‘mode of exercising challenges,’ as well as the ‘order of challenge’, rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. # # H* # “Where twelve veniremen have been passed by the State and accepted by the defendant there is no injustice to the latter for the trial court to permit the State to peremptorily challenge a juror where the defendant has not exhausted his peremptory challenges, and provided the defendant is granted the same privilege. In most cases, if not in all, such a rule would be advantageous to the accused. It is a matter of common knowledge that in many instances it requires days and sometimes weeks to secure twelve unbiased jurors. During that time and before the jury is completed and sworn, the defendant and his friends may have learned facts which would justify a challenge for cause, or a peremptory challenge of a juror already accepted, but not sworn. There is no reason why the trial judge should not allow such a challenge. Since the State is entitled to a fair, impartial and unprejudiced jury, the same as the defendant, its right of challenge under the same circumstances should be granted.””
    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.