Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 267 Ga. 149 - Turner v. State

Turner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
2
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

95 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Barnes v. State (1998), Raulerson v. State (1997)

95 state decisions

4501996200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Batson v. Kentucky · Chambers v. Mississippi · Purkett v. Elem

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

  1. “It is then for the trial court to determine, after considering the totality of the circumstances, whether the opponent of the strike has shown that the proponent of the strike was motivated by discriminatory intent in the exercise of the peremptory challenge.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A trial court's findings on whether the opponent of the strike has met his burden of persuasion is entitled to great deference and will be affirmed unless clearly erroneous.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We must keep in mind that the reasonable suspicion of a juror’s impartiality that prompts the exercise of a peremptory challenge need not rise to the level of justifying the removal of a venireman for cause. Henry v. State, 265 Ga. 732 (2) ( 462 SE2d 737 ) (1995). We must also keep in mind that the [proponent’s] multiple rationales for the exercise of [this] strike were facially race-neutral and were supported by [sufficient undisputed] facts elicited during voir dire. . . . The [proponent’s] failure to ask [additional] ques tions does not evidence racial animus.”
    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.