Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 400 S.W.2d 50 - State v. DeClue

State v. DeClue’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
September 1990
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 1990 · most notably State v. Cuckovich (1972), State v. Olinghouse (1980)

38 state decisions

2301966197019801990decided

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 Theobald v. St. Louis Transit Co. · State v. Hartman · Barb v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · State v. Miller · Murphy v. Cole

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

  1. “. . . if for any reason, statutory or otherwise, a venireman is not in a position to enter the jury box with an open mind, free from bias or prejudice, he is not a competent juror. . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'Some cases will be ones where an appellate judge might have done differently but at the same time cannot say that there was an abuse of discretion * * *.' Each case must be judged on its particular facts. A determination by the trial judge of the qualifications of a venireman necessarily involves a judgment based on an observation of the demeanor of the venireman and, in the light of that observation, an evaluation and interpretation of his answers as they relate to whether he would be fair and impartial if chosen as a juror.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““. . . [determination of a challenged venireman’s qualifications initially rests within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and will not be lightly disturbed on appellate review; however, appellate courts are not required to gi ve blind deference to a trial judge’s exercise of discretion in this respect and should, when the question is raised, review the record and determine whether or not the trial judge, in fact, abused his discretion. .” (Citations omitted.) Id. at 18 .”
    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.