State v. Bowman’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably State v. Golphin (2000), State v. Jones (2002)
46 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
Relies on Lockett v. Ohio · Washington v. Davis · Wainwright v. Witt · Taylor v. Louisiana · Payne v. Tennessee
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“only when there are such serious improprieties as would make it impossible to attain a fair and impartial verdict under the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]o determine whether a prospective juror may be excused for cause due to that juror’s views on capital punishment, the trial court must consider whether those views would ‘[“]prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.[”]’ Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 83 L. Ed. 2d 841, 851-52 (1985) [(quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 65 L. Ed. 2d 581, 589 (1980))].” State v. Bowman, 349 N.C. 459, 469-70 , 509 S.E.2d 428, 435 (1998), cert. denied, [527] U.S. [1040], [144] L. Éd. 2d [802] (1999).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Berry
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.