Cherry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 50 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant’s next contention is that the jury panel should have been quashed. He argues that the selection of jurors from a list of registered voters denied him an impartial jury. We have held that the use of such a method to select jurors does not violate the requirement that the jury be selected from a representative cross-section of the community. Sanders v. State, 300 Ark. 25 , 776 S.W.2d 334 (1989); Mitchell v. State, 299 Ark. 566 , 776 S.W.2d 332 (1989). Appellant argues that the jury was partial because it was composed of the same registered voters who elected the judge and prosecutor. This argument is answered simply by saying that a list of registered voters would include those who voted for the judge or prosecutor, those who voted for their opponents and those who did not vote at all.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sheridan v. State

2. “Any parolee’s person, automobile, residence, or any property under his control may be searched by a parole officer without a warrant if the officer has reasonable grounds for investigating whether the parolee has violated the terms of his parole or committed a crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 95 Ark. App. 108 - Henley v. State