Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 497 Pa. 23 - Commonwealth v. Henderson

Commonwealth v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably 457 So. 2d 481 - State v. Neil (1984), 97 Ill. 2d 252 - People v. Williams (1983)

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

4501981199020002010decided

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 Swain v. State of Alabama · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Duren v. Missouri · 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler · Cannon v. United States

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he race, creed, national origin, sex or other similar characteristics of a venireman may be proper considerations in exercising peremptory challenges ....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects upon the veracity of the defendant-witness; 2) the likelihood, in view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful person; 3) the age and circumstances of the defendant; 4) the strength of the prosecution’s case and the prosecution’s need to resort to this evidence as compared with the availability to the defense of other witnesses through which its version of the events surrounding the incident can be presented; and 5) the existence of alternative means of attacking the defendant’s credibility.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While challenges for cause permit rejection of jurors on a narrowly specified, provable and legally cognizable basis of impartiality, the peremptory permits rejection for a real or imagined partiality that is less easily designated or demonstrable. * * * It is often exercised upon the "sudden impressions and unaccountable prejudices we are apt to conceive upon the bare looks and gestures of another" * * * or upon the feeling that "the bare questioning [a juror's] indifference may sometimes provoke resentment." * * * It is no less frequently exercised on grounds normally thought irrelevant to legal proceedings or official action, namely, the race, religion, nationality, occupation or affiliations of people summoned for jury duty.”
    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.