Joy v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

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

1. “[a] trial court’s ruling on a challenge for cause will be upheld on appeal unless it is clearly against the evidence and is a clear abuse of discretion. The relevant question is whether a venireperson’s beliefs preclude following the court’s instructions so as to prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. A venireper-son’s qualifications as a prospective juror are not determined by an answer to a single question, but by the entire examination. The trial court is in the best position to evaluate a venireperson’s qualifications to serve as a juror and has broad discretion in making the evaluation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Braddy · Berg v. State

2. “1. ... [N]o person who has formed or expressed an opinion concerning the matter or any material fact in controversy in any case that may influence the judgment of such person ... shall be sworn as a juror in the same cause, 2. Persons whose opinions or beliefs preclude them from following the law as declared by the court in its instructions are' ineligible to serve as jurors on that case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Braddy · Thomas ex rel. Thomas v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities

3. “If the challenged venireperson subsequently reassures the court that he can be impartial, the bare possibility of prejudice will not deprive the judge of discretion to seat the venireperson. [McClain, 848 S.W.2d at 35.] Initial reservations expressed by venirepersons do not determine their qualifications; consideration of the entire voir dire examination of the venireperson is determinative. State v. Feltrop, 803 S.W.2d 1, 8 (Mo. banc 1991).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomas ex rel. Thomas v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities