Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 555 F.3d 90 - Jones v. West

Jones v. West’s Empirical Analysis

555 F.3d 90 · 2009

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Farhane (2011), Rosario v. Ercole (2010)

9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

240200920102020decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Washington v. Davis · Johnson v. California · United States v. Stavroulakis

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

  1. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Feder al law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “First, the defendant must make out a prima facie case by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose. Second, once the defendant has made out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the State to explain adequately the racial exclusion by offering permissible race-neutral justifications for the strikes. Third, if a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination.”
    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.