Schowgurow v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 38 district · 257 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 336 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Benton v. Maryland (1969), Bloom v. Illinois (1968)
27 federal appellate · 38 district · 257 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Mapp v. Ohio · Escobedo v. Illinois · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Linkletter v. Walker
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 336 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That the Grand Jury for Wicom-ico County, Maryland, which indicted the Petitioner on September 9,1958 and the Petit Jury for Talbot County, Maryland, which, on September 30, 1960, convicted the Petitioner of murder in the first degree were organized pursuant to the requirements of Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and were therefore illegally and unconstitutionally constituted in that said juries were selected in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. That the indictment which was returned by the Grand Jury for Wicomico County was, accordingly, invalid as was the verdict returned by the Petit Jury for Talbot County, Maryland in that the said indictment and verdict were returned by juries organized in con travention of the Constitution of the United States.” 1”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he exclusionary practice resulting in the failure of the jury to represent a cross-section of the community is condemned by the [due process and equal protection clauses] [of the] Fourteenth Amendment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Gorman · Labat v. Bennett“... nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Craig v. State · O'Hair v. Hill
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.