Apodaca v. Oregon’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
278 federal appellate · 29 district · 737 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,260 later decisions (64 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Rita v. United States (2007), Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
278 federal appellate · 29 district · 737 state decisions — followed in 43 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
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Swain v. State of Alabama · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Patton v. United States · Williams v. Florida
Cited together with Johnson v. Louisiana · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Florida · 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 1,260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““... the essential feature of a jury obviously lies in the interposition between the accused and his accuser of the commonsense judgment of a group of laymen ____” Williams v. Florida, supra, [399 U.S.] at 100 [ 90 S.Ct. at 1906 ], A requirement of unanimity, however, does not materially contribute to the exercise of this commonsense judgment. As we said in Williams, a jury will come to such a judgment as long as it consists of a group of laymen representative of a cross section of the community who have the duty and the opportunity to deliberate, free from outside attempts at intimidation, on the question of a defendant’s guilt.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage““All that the Constitution forbids, however, is systematic exclusion of identifiable segments of the community from jury panels and from the juries ultimately drawn from those panels; a defendant may not, for example, challenge the makeup of a jury merely because no members of his race are on the jury, but must prove that his race has been systematically excluded. See Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 208-209, 85 S.Ct. 824 , 829, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965) ....” (Emphasis added.)”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t has been universally understood that a unanimous verdict is an essential element of a Sixth Amendment jury trial . See Andres v. United States , 333 U.S. 740 , 748, 68 S.Ct. 880 , 884, 92 L.Ed. 1055 ; Patton v. United States , 281 U.S. 276 , 288, 50 S.Ct. 253 , 254, 74 L.Ed. 854 ; Hawaii v. Mankichi , 190 U.S. 197 , 211-212, 23 S.Ct. 787 , 788, 47 L.Ed. 1016 [ (1903) ] ; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 , 586, 20 S.Ct. 448 , 450, 44 L.Ed. 597 ; Thompson v. Utah , 170 U.S. 343 , 351, 353, 18 S.Ct. 620 , 623, 42 L.Ed. 1061 [ (1898) ] ; cf. 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution s 1779 n. 2 (5th ed. 1891). I would follow these settled Sixth Amendment precedents and reverse the judgment before us.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Arceo · State v. Jinks
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.