Ex Parte Branch’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 449 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 455 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 128 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Young (1989), 577 So. 2d 474 - Kuenzel v. State (1990)
1 federal appellate · 449 state decisions — followed in 14 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
Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Washington v. Davis · Reynolds v. Sims
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 455 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“2. A pattern of strikes against black jurors on the particular venire; e.g., 4 of 6 peremptory challenges were used to strike black jurors. Batson , 476 U.S. at 97 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723.”
139 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lightfoot v. State · Ex Parte Bird“[w]e may only reverse the trial judge's determination that the prosecution's peremptory challenges were not motivated by intentional discrimination if that determination is clearly erroneous.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Neal v. State · Little v. State“"`"The trial judge cannot merely accept the specific reasons given by the prosecutor at face value, see [ People v. ] Hall, 35 Cal.3d [161,] ... 168, 672 P.2d [854,] ... 858-59, 197 Cal.Rptr. [71,] ... 75 [(1983)]; Slappy [v. State,] 503 So.2d [350,] ... 356 [(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987)]; the judge must consider whether racially neutral explanations are contrived to avoid admitting acts of group discrimination. See Slappy, supra. This evaluation by the trial judge is necessary because it is possible that an attorney, although not intentionally discriminating, may try to find reasons other than race to challenge a back juror, when race may be his primary factor in deciding to strike the juror. "'"”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Jackson · Madison v. State
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.