Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 389 U.S. 24 - Jones v. Georgia

Jones v. Georgia’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

353
cited by 353 later decisions
30
cited 30 times by the Supreme Court
26
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

116 federal appellate · 11 district · 117 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 353 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Batson v. Kentucky (1986), Tollett v. Henderson (1973)

116 federal appellate · 11 district · 117 state decisions — followed in 26 states

14701967197019801990200020102020decided

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 Norris v. State of Alabama · Whitus v. State of Georgia Whitus · Avery v. State of Georgia · Cassell v. Texas · Eubanks v. State of 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 353 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Under such a system the opportunity for discrimination was present and we cannot say on this record that it was not resorted to by the commissioners. Indeed, the disparity between the percentage of Negroes on the tax digest (27.1%) and that of the grand jury venire (9.1%) and the petit jury venire (7.8%) strongly points to this conclusion. Although the system of selection used here had been specifically condemned by the Court of Appeals, the State offered no testimony as to why it was continued on retrial. The State offered no explanation for the disparity between the percentage of Negroes on the tax digest and those on the venires, although the digest must have included the names of large numbers of ‘upright and intelligent’ Negroes as the statutory qualification required. In any event the State failed to offer any testimony indicating that the 27.1% of Negroes on the tax digest were not fully qualified. The State, therefore, failed to meet the burden of rebutting the petitioners’ prima facie case.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.