State v. Lohnes’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably State v. Wright (2009), State v. Knecht (1997)
25 state decisions
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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Taylor v. Louisiana · Duren v. Missouri · Turner v. Fouche · Texas v. McCullough
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresentation is due to the systematic exclusion of the group from the jury selection process. Arguello, 502 N.W.2d at 553 ; Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d at 83 -4 (citing Duren, 439 U.S. at 364 , 99 S.Ct. at 668 ; Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 , 90 S.Ct. 532 , 24 L.Ed.2d 567 (1970)). [¶ 23] Helmer failed to meet his burden in showing there was a”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he Sixth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that all state petit juries must be selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community. The South Dakota legislature had adopted a statute which provides a similar requirement: ‘It is the policy of the state of South Dakota that all litigants in the courts of this state entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community in the municipality, district or county where the court convenes_’ SDCL 16-13-10.1. It is apparent that the burden is now upon the judiciary, not only to prevent purposeful discrimination against minorities but to insure that all identifiable groups in the community are fairly represented on jury panels_ It is not important whether the underrepresentation is purposeful or not, nor whether it arose from the selection of the jury panel or after through the granting of statutory exemptions or excuses.... ‘(However), if a substantial threat is posed to the representative nature of the jury pool because of constitutionally granted excuses, then supplemental names must be added to correct any gross imbalance.’”
2 later decisions 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.