United States v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis
473 F.2d 686 · 1973
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably State v. Blankenship (1992), Grigsby v. Mabry (1985)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 1863 · 28 U.S.C. § 1865
Relies on Witherspoon v. Illinois · Swain v. State of Alabama · Williams v. Florida · Strauder v. West Virginia · Alexander 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The true basis of a challenge to the master list in this case must rest on the allegation that the compilation of the list excluded an identifiable community group, to wit: persons aged eighteen to twenty. Of course, ‘[njeither the jury roll nor the venire need be a perfect mirror of the community or accurately reflect the proportionate strength of every identifiable group.’ Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 208 , 85 S.Ct. 824, 829 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965). However, since a jury is designed to ‘express the conscience of the community,’ Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 519 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), ‘[t]he American tradition of trial by jury . . . necessarily contemplates an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community.’ Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 220 , 66 S.Ct. 984, 985 , 90 L.Ed. 1181 (1946). Thus, juries must be indiscriminately selected ‘without systematic and intentional exclusion of any substantial portion of the community . that cannot be . excluded in whole or in part without doing violence to the democratic nature of the jury system.’ Id., at 220, 223 , 66 S.Ct., at 985 . This command flows from the requisites of both Due Process, Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 , 92 S.Ct. 2163 , 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972) (plurality opinion of Mr. Justice Marshall), and the Sixth Amendment, Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 100 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970). “Accordingly, the dispositive question is whether persons aged eighteen to t”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““In sum, there is no support in law or logic for the proposition that the right of jury service is a concomitant subsidiary of the franchise. Accordingly, we reject appellant’s contention that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment ipso facto rendered unconstitutional the twenty-one year minimum of 28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b) (1).””
1 later decision 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.