Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 367 So. 2d 590 - Speigner v. State

367 So. 2d 590 - Speigner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
September 2001
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably Ex Parte Kennedy (1985), Brown v. State (1980)

29 state decisions

2301978198019902000decided

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 Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Estes v. Texas · Murphy v. Florida · Rideau v. Louisiana

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The constitutional standard of fairness requires that a defendant have `a panel of impartial, "indifferent" jurors.' Irvin v. Dowd , 366 U.S. [717], at 722 [ 81 S.Ct. 1639 at 1642, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961)]. Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. `To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.' (Citations omitted) "At the same time, the juror's assurances that he is equal to this task cannot be dispositive of the accused's rights, and it remains open to the defendant to demonstrate `The actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality.'"”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.