Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 120 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Gibbons v. State (1982), State v. Cassano (2002)
8 federal appellate · 120 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Pointer v. Texas · Swain v. State of Alabama · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Hampton v. United States
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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`after the usual voir dire questions have been put by the court, . . . the counsel for either party shall have the right to inquire of the individual jurors examined touching any matter or thing which would illustrate any interest of the juror in the cause, including any opinion as to which party ought to prevail. ... Although a juror may have been acceptable ... when questioned by the court, the juror may be shown to be partial when questioned by the state or defense and if such showing is made, the juror should be stricken for cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Godfrey v. Francis“(a) On voir dire examination in a felony trial, the jurors shall be asked the following questions: ****** (4) “Are you conscientiously opposed to capital punishment?” If the juror answers this question in the negative, he shall be held to be a competent juror. * * * * * * (c) If a juror answers any of the questions set out in subsection (a) of this Code section so as to render him incompetent or if he is found to be so by the judge, he shall be set aside for cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In the interest of clarity and uniformity, in conformity with the trend toward witness competency, and in view of the constitutional rights of a defendant to call witnesses in his or her defense, we hold that a witness who has violated the rule of sequestration in a criminal case shall not be prevented from testifying. [Cits.]”
1 later decision 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.