Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 UT App 18 - State v. Cannon

2002 UT App 18 - State v. Cannon’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Purkett v. Elem · State v. Colwell · State v. Cantu · State v. Higginbotham

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

  1. “permitted to exercise their peremptory challenges for virtually any reason, or for no reason at all.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “parties in a criminal action may not discriminate against potential jurors by exercising peremptory challenges solely on the basis of race.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) neutral, (2) related to the case being tried, (3) clear and reasonably specific, and (4) legitimate,”
    2 later decisions 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.