Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 N.J. 284 - Wright v. Bernstein

Wright v. Bernstein’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

94
cited by 94 later decisions
9
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 84 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably State v. Bey (1988), State v. Gilmore (1986)

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 84 state decisions

2401957196019701980199020002010decided

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 Raub v. Carpenter · State v. Kociolek · Hager v. Weber · Panko v. Flintkote Co. · Hartpence v. Grouleff

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

  1. “a party is not required to make an affirmative showing that the denial of his right to peremptory challenge [] resulted in prejudice....”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]nce the jury is sworn, ... the law presumes that every juror in a case is indifferent and above legal exception, or otherwise he would have been challenged for cause. This presumption puts a duty on a party to show that they were or would have been dissatisfied with the jury as finally impaneled, and that they would have exercised the right of additional peremptory challenges given them by statute if they were aware of the true situation. [ Ibid. (emphasis added).]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The fundamental right of trial by a fair and impartial jury is jealously guarded by the courts. The jury is an integral part of the court for the administration of justice and on elementary principles its verdict must be obedient to the court's charge based solely on legal evidence produced before it and entirely free from the taint of extraneous considerations and influences. [ Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284, 294-95 , 129 A. 2d 19 (1957).]”
    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.