Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 OHIOST2D 66 - State v. Anderson

State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 2025
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably State v. Jenkins (1984), State v. Loza (1994)

35 state decisions

120197219801990200020102020decided

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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · McGautha v. California · Boulden v. Holman · Maxwell v. Bishop · State v. Higgs

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

  1. “"*** Any person called as a juror for the trial of any cause shall be examined *** as to his qualifications The court may permit the attorney for the defendant *** and the attorney for the state to conduct the examination of the prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. In the latter event, the court shall permit the state and defense to supplement the examination by further inquiry."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`The right to examine prospective jurors on their voir dire is granted to litigants in order to enable them to select a jury composed of men and women qualified and competent to judge and determine, without bias, prejudice or partiality, facts in issue. For the proper exercise of this right, the Legislature has deemed it wise to give to litigants the right of peremptory challenge and challenge for cause. This former right is to be exercised at their discretion and free from any limitation or restriction. Any rule of law which denies a litigant reasonable latitude in the examination of prospective jurors as to their qualifications, in order to enable him to exercise such peremptory challenges judiciously and intelligently, deprives him of a substantial right.'”
    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.