United States v. Florence’s Empirical Analysis
456 F.2d 46 · 1972
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Zicarelli v. Gray (1976), United States v. Young (1980)
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 129 · 28 U.S.C. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1865 · 28 U.S.C. § 1869 · 50 U.S.C. § 3811
Relies on Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. · Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. Shannon · Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. · United States v. Anderson · Fuhrman v. United States Steel Corp.
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) The following Parts of the County of Cook for the purpose of drawing electors for jury service are determined to be most favorable to an impartial trial while not incurring unnecessary expense nor unduly burdening the citizens of Cook County with jury service: 60004 60005 60007 60008 60010 60015 60016 60018 60022 60025 60029 60043 60053 60056 60062 60067 60068 60070 60076 60077 60090 60091 60093 60103 60104 60106 60120 60130 60131 60153 60160 60161 60162 60163 60164 60165 60171 60172 60195 60201 60202 60203 60204 60301 60302 60303 60304 60305 60601 60605 60606 60607 60610 60611 60612 60613 60614 60618 60622 60624 60625 60626 60630 60631 60634 60635 60639 60640 60641 60644 60645 60646 60647 60648 60651 60656 60659 60660. 3. Part III Zip Code areas: 60402 60406 60409 60411 60415 60419 60422 60425 60426 60429 60430 60438 60439 60443 60453 60454 60455 60456 60457 60462 60463 60464 60465 60466 60469 60471 60473 60475 60476 60477 60480 60482 60525 60534 60546 60558 60608 60609 60617 60619 60620 60621 60623 60627 60628 60629 60632 60633 60636 60637 60638 60642 60643 60649 60650 60652 60653 60655 60658. (d) Electors shall be summoned to jury service to a facility within that Part of the County from which their names were drawn. The Chief Judge shall by order fix places for appearance in response to summons for jury duty and for the assembly of jurors consistent with (c) above. (e) Excuse. The Chief Judge or his designate shall have charge of excusing jurors from jury service, imp”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The validity of a selection less encompassing than district-wide was repeatedly upheld against attacks that a defendant was entitled to a jury selected from the entire district and not from just the division or area surrounding the place of trial where trial was held. ( United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360 (2d Cir.1948), cert. den., 333 U.S. 860 ....) It should be noted that United States v. Gottfried, supra , upheld the validity of this restriction even after consideration of Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 ... (1946), ... which held that jurors must be drawn in such a manner as to include representatives of all of the economic, social, religious, political and geographical groups of the community. Thus, under old § 1865(a) the district court would have been permitted to draw jurors only from the Elkins `division [locale of Florence trial],' and neither the 1968 Act nor the Constitution requires a departure from this rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since the [Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968] requires only that selection be made of jurors from the counties, parishes, or similar political subdivisions surrounding the place where the court is held--the precise designation to be determined by the court--it gives no right to a jury from the entire district where there is a plan encompassing divisions.”
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.