State v. Higginbotham’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably State v. Sonnier (1980), 278 So. 2d 485 - State v. Douglas (1973)
46 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
Relies on Detenber v. American Universal Insurance Co · State v. Hudson · State v. Richey · State v. Reese · State v. Barnes
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that: "(2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"... It is not per se evidence of partiality that a prospective juror is friendly with the party injured by the offense. The relationship must be such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict ..." State v. Higginbotham, 261 La. 983 , 261 So.2d 638 (1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The court may disqualify a prospective petit juror from service in a particular case when for any reason doubt exists as to the competency of the prospective juror to serve in the case."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.