Hoyt v. State of Florida’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
175 federal appellate · 32 district · 382 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 747 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Taylor v. Louisiana (1975), Payne v. Tennessee (1991)
175 federal appellate · 32 district · 382 state decisions — followed in 32 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1862
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd · Strauder v. West Virginia · Hernandez v. Texas · Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co.
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 747 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t requires only that the jury be indiscriminately drawn from among those eligible in the community for jury service, untrammelled by any arbitrary and systematic exclusions.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . ; We cannot say that it is constitutionally impermissible for a State, acting in pursuit of the general welfare, to conclude that a woman should be relieved from the civic duty of jury service unless she herself determines that such service is consistent with her own special responsibilities. “. . . It is true, of course, that Florida could have limited the exemption, as some other States have done, only to women who have family responsibilities. But we cannot regard it as irrational for a state legislature to consider preferable a broad exemption, whether born of the State’s historic public policy or of a determination that it would not be administratively feasible to decide in each individual instance whether the family responsibilities of a prospective female juror were serious enough to warrant an exemption.” 368 U.S. at 62-63 , 82 S.Ct. at 162-64, 7 L.Ed.2d at 122-23 . (Footnotes omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Archer v. Mayes““This case in no way resembles those involving race or color in which the circumstances shown, were found by this Court to compel a conclusion of purposeful discriminatory exclusions from jury service. (Citing cases) There is present here neither the unfortunate atmosphere of ethnic or racial prejudices which underlay the situations depicted in those cases, nor the long course of discriminatory administrative practice which the statistical showing in each of them evinced.” Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57, 68 , 82 S.Ct. 159, 166 , 7 L.Ed.2d 118 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Emery
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.