Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 N.C. 20 - State v. Cornell

State v. Cornell’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
4
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

82 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably State v. Hardy (1977), State v. Noell (1974)

82 state decisions

48019721980199020002010decided

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 Swain v. State of Alabama · Brown v. Allen · Hernandez v. Texas · Norris v. State of Alabama · Smith v. Texas

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

  1. ““The absence from the jury list of the names of persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one for the short period of time here complained of is not unreasonable, and does not constitute systematic and arbitrary exclusion of this age group from jury service.” Id. at 37 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We know of no reasonable method by which the Forsyth County Jury Commission could have obtained a fair cross-section of the age group in question within a period of two months and one day. None of the names of this age group appeared on the voter registration records; very few of such names appeared on the tax lists; a large number of this group would have been in school, and many of them, being still dependent upon their parents, would not have established an independent address. * * * “The absence from the jury list of the names of persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one for the short period of time here complained of [21 July 1971 to 21 September 1971] is not unreasonable, and does not constitute systematic and arbitrary exclusion of this age group from jury service.””
    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.