Rogers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
January 1995
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. State · Johnson v. State · Owen v. State · Daniels v. State
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the present situation, we find the use of the computer rather than the jury box was not improper by the jury commissioners. There have been no allegations of racial, sexual, or religious discrimination. The process did not result in systematic exclusion of any group and the voter registration list was not based upon political affiliation. The computerized method resulted in an impartial selection of jurors from a cross-section of the community, who were chosen in a random method. In utilizing this method, the jury commissioners satisfied the purposes and goals of the jury selection statutes. Moreover, the method employed in the present case is very similar to the method outlined for counties with larger populations in Ind. Code 33-4-5.5-1 et seq.” Rogers v. State, supra at 73.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pitman v. State“The major requirement should be that the system of selection is not arbitrary. Obviously, jury commissioners must be vested with a certain amount of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Peoples v. State
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.