Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 215 Ark. 618 - Black v. State

Black v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
May 1987
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 1987 · most notably Collins v. State (1977), Perry v. State (1973)

25 state decisions

10019491950196019701980decided

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 Fay v. People of State of New York Bove · Shinn v. State · Smith v. State · Lowmack v. State · Younger 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Objection was made and overruled to the use of these notes. Had a confession been shown, it would have been improper to introduce any part thereof without introducing the whole statement; however, the deputy prosecuting attorney in his examination of appellant offered to submit the transcription to appellant’s attorney, which offer ivas declined. The principal use of the transcription was to ask appellant if he had made certain statements disclosed by the transcription, some of which he admitted, while others were denied. The testimony on the part of the state was to the effect that appellant had made at the police station certain statements which he denied having made while testifying as a witness at the trial. We think this cross-examination was entirely proper and permissible.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““We think that the inference deductible from the Fay case (Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261 , 67 S.Ct. 1613 , 91 L.Ed. 2043 ) is that where a state does not impose upon women as a class the inescapable duty of jury service, a defendant who complains that due process was denied, or that he was not afforded the equal protection contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment, must show something more than continuing failure of jury commissioners to call women for jury service”
    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.