Pink Franklin v. State of South Carolina’s Empirical Analysis
218 U.S. 161 · 1910
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 9 district · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 175 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2006 · most notably Brown v. Allen (1953), Avery v. State of Alabama (1940)
45 federal appellate · 9 district · 77 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Gibson v. State of Mississippi · Clyatt v. United States · Seth Carter v. State of Texas · Rufus Martin v. State of Texas · Dan Rogers v. State of Alabama
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 175 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`We do not think there is anything in this provision of the statute having the effect to deny rights secured by the Federal Constitution... . There is nothing in this statute which discriminates against individuals on account of race or color or previous condition, or which subjects such persons to any other or different treatment than other electors who may be qualified to serve as jurors. The statute simply provides for an exercise of judgment in attempting to secure competent jurors of proper qualifications.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Silva · State v. Brewer““It is next contended that the plaintiff in error was denied due process of law in the refusal of the court to continue his case when the same was called for trial. It is elementary that the matter of continuance rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and its action in that respect is not ordinarily reviewable. It would take an extreme case to make the action of the trial court in such a case a denial of due process.” [Emphasis supplied.]”
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.