Akins v. Texas’s Empirical Analysis
325 U.S. 398 · 1945
Citation profile
248 federal appellate · 30 district · 350 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 845 later decisions (75 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Batson v. Kentucky (1986), Teague v. Lane (1989)
248 federal appellate · 30 district · 350 state decisions — followed in 32 states
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 Snowden v. Hughes · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Norris v. State of Alabama · Smith v. Texas · Malinski v. People of State of New York
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 845 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“43 Similarly, see Akins v. State of Texas, supra, 325 U.S. at 403, 65 S.Ct. at 1279, 89 L.Ed at 1696: 44 'But such defendants are entitled to require that those who are trusted with jury selection shall not pursue a course of conduct which results in discrimination 'in the selection of jurors on racial grounds.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No person shall be selected or serve as a grand juror who does not possess the following qualifications: “1. He must be a citizen of the State, and of the county in which he is to serve, and be qualified under the Constitution and laws to vote in said county, provided that his failure to pay a poll tax or register to vote shall not be held to disqualify him in this instance; "2. “3. He must be of sound mind and good moral character; “4. He must be able to read and write; “5. He must not have been convicted of any felony; “6. He must not be under indictment or other legal accusation for theft or of any felony.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ross v. State · Partida v. State“"While our duty, in reviewing a conviction upon a complaint that the procedure through which it was obtained violates due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, calls for our examination of evidence to determine for ourselves whether a federal constitutional right has been denied, expressly or in substance and effect, we accord in that examination great respect to the conclusions of the state judiciary. That respect leads us to accept the conclusion of the trier on disputed issues `unless it is so lacking in support in the evidence that to give it effect would work that fundamental unfairness which is at war with due process,' or equal protection."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Anonymous
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.