Commonwealth v. Soares’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 22 district · 464 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 577 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Batson v. Kentucky (1986), Georgia v. McCollum (1992)
57 federal appellate · 22 district · 464 state decisions — followed in 29 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968)
Relies on Swain v. State of Alabama · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · South Dakota v. Opperman · Linkletter v. Walker · Taylor 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 577 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"What we view art. 12 of the Declaration of Rights as proscribing is the use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors solely by virtue of their membership in, or affiliation with, particular, defined groupings in the community. Were we to decline to so hold, we would leave the right to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community wholly susceptible to nullification through the intentional use of peremptory challenges to exclude identifiable segments of that community."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude members of discrete groups, solely on the basis of bias presumed to derive from that individual's membership in the group”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) a pattern of conduct has developed whereby several prospective jurors who have been challenged peremptorily are members of a discrete group, and (2) there is a likelihood they are being excluded from the jury solely by reason of their group membership.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.