Carmical v. Craven’s Empirical Analysis
457 F.2d 582 · 1971
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 1996 · most notably United States v. Potter (1977), People v. Powell (1974)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Fay v. Noia · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Swain v. State of Alabama · Gomillion v. Lightfoot · Strauder v. West Virginia
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The object of the constitutional mandate is to produce master jury panels from which identifiable community classes have not been systematically excluded. The object is neither to reward jury commissioners with good motives nor to punish those with bad intentions. When a jury selection system actually results in master jury panels from which identifiable classes are grossly excluded, the subjective intent of those who develop and enforce the system is immaterial. . . . However, proof of deliberate intent to discriminate may be relevant when, as in Swain [Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 13 L. Ed. 2d 759 , 85 S. Ct. 824 (1965)], the percentage of excluded classes is not gross enough unequivocally to establish discrimination. Evidence that the system was designed to discriminate invidiously may add enough strength to such statistical data to make out a prima facie case. In short, subjective intent may be relevant to prove that a particular system is invidiously discriminatory, but that evidence is not an element of the constitutional test.”
2 later decisions 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.