Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 F.3d 679 - Elem v. Purkett

Elem v. Purkett’s Empirical Analysis

25 F.3d 679 · 1994

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2014

15 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

130199420002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Sawyer v. Whitley · Refre 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Wjhere the prosecution strikes a prospective juror who is a member of the defendant’s racial group, solely on the basis of factors which are facially irrelevant to the question of whether that person is qualified to serve as a juror in the particular case, the prosecution must at least articulate some plausible race-neutral reason for believing those factors will somehow affect the person’s ability to perform his or her duties as a juror.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “prosecution's explanation for striking juror 22 . . . was pretextual,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “But if an appellate court accepts a trial court’s finding that a prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation for his peremptory challenges should be believed, we fail to see how the appellate court nevertheless could find discrimination. The credibility of the prosecutor’s explanation goes to the heart of the equal protection analysis, and once that has been settled, there seems nothing left to review.”
    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.