Bui v. Haley’s Empirical Analysis
321 F.3d 1304 · 2003
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Taylor v. Maddox (2004), United States v. Hill (2011)
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Powers v. Ohio
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Mjere failure to explain every strike of black jurors will not necessarily prevent a prosecutor from successfully rebutting a prima facie case of race discrimination, where there is sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the court can deduce a race-neutral reason. The error of the district court does not lie in its affirming the Alabama Supreme Court’s reliance on this legal principle, but in upholding an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence contained in the record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Yee v. Duncan“[The assisting attorney’s] familiarity with Bui’s case and her role at trial have no bearing on her knowledge of [the prosecutor’s] reasons for striking venire members during jury selection. That she was able to articulate reasons for the strikes could just as plausibly have resulted from the fact that she ‘look[ed] over the transcript and the information still available in the district attorney’s office,’ as from actual knowledge of those reasons.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paulino v. Harrison“[flactual determinations by state courts are presumed correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, § 2254(e)(1), and a decision adjudicated on the merits in a state court and based on a factual determination will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding, § 2254(d)(2).”
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.