Beard v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
604 F.2d 485 · 1979
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Parratt v. Taylor (1981), McI Communications Corporation McI v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company (1983)
61 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 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
Relies on Baker v. McCollan · Carey v. Piphus · Wood v. Strickland · Hoffa v. United States · United States v. Batchelder
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'if the requested instruction is given "in substance,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has been zealous in its protection of probing voir dire,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In its entirety, the examination must reveal inquiry adequate 'to call to the attention of the veniremen those important matters that might lead them to recognize or to display their disqualifying attributes.' " Fietzer v. Ford Motor Co., 622 F.2d 281 , 285 (7th Cir.1980) (quoting United States v. Lewin, 467 F.2d 1132 , 1138 (7th Cir.1972)) (emphasis added). One essential purpose of voir dire is to "effectively alert the potential jurors to examine [any] possible prejudice....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Trujillo v. Sullivan
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.