Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 U.S. 127 - JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB

JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

2,738
cited by 2,738 later decisions
36
cited 36 times by the Supreme Court
47
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

537 federal appellate · 43 district · 1,678 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,738 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Miller-El v. Dretke (2005), United States v. Virginia (1996)

537 federal appellate · 43 district · 1,678 state decisions — followed in 47 states

1.1k01994200020102020decided

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 Batson v. Kentucky · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Swain v. State of Alabama · Hernandez v. New York

Cited together with Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Purkett v. Elem · Powers v. Ohio · Georgia v. McCollum

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 2,738 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As with race-based Batson claims, a party alleging gender discrimination must make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination before the party exercising the challenge is required to explain the basis for the strike. When an explanation is required, it need not rise to the level of a “for cause” challenge; rather, it merely must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender, and the proffered explanation may not be pretextual.”
    57 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender, or on the assumption that an individual will be biased in a particular case for no reason other than the fact that the person happens to be a woman or happens to be a man.”
    24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “state-sponsored group stereotypes rooted in, and reflective of, historical prejudice.”
    24 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.