Hernandez v. Texas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

568 federal appellate · 92 district · 579 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 1,705 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Throughout our history differences in race and color have defined easily identifiable groups which have at times required the aid of the courts in securing equal treatment under the laws. But community prejudices are not static, and from time to time other differences from the community norm may define other groups which need the same protection. Whether such a group exists within a community is a question of fact. When the existence of a distinct class is demonstrated, and it is further shown that the laws, as written or as applied, single out that class for different treatment not based on some reasonable classification, the guarantees of the Constitution have been violated. The Fourteenth Amendment is not directed solely against discrimination due to a “two-class theory” — that is, based upon differences between “white” and Negro.”

   30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke · Hansen v. United States

2. “(c)ircumstances or chance may well dictate that no persons in a certain class will serve on a particular jury or during some particular period.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guice v. Fortenberry · 714 So. 2d 320 - Pace v. State

3. “Having established the existence of a class, petitioner was then charged with the burden of proving discrimination. To do so, he relied on the pattern of proof established by Norris v. State of Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 , 55 S.Ct. 579, 584, 79 L.Ed. 1074. In that case, proof that Negroes constituted a substantial segment of the population of the jurisdiction, that some Negroes were qualified to serve as jurors, and that none had been called for jury service over an extended period of time, was held to constitute prima facie proof of the systematic exclusion of Negroes from jury service. This holding, sometimes called the `rule of exclusion,' has been applied in other cases, and it is available in supplying proof of discrimination against any delineated class.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rose v. Mitchell · State v. Carter