62 Wash. 2d 362 - State v. Persinger’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably 89 Wash. 2d 592 - Childers v. Childers (1978), 73 Wash. 2d 405 - Markham Advertising Co. v. State (1968)
65 state decisions
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 Gulf Ry Co v. Ellis · Hayes v. State of Missouri · Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman · Stilson v. United States · Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp.
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is recognized that classifications must be made and that in making them, dividing lines must be drawn some place. Thus, the question is not whether there is in fact some discrimination, but rather whether the discrimination is justified.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“An accused cannot complain if [she] is tried by an impartial jury. [She] can demand nothing more.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“requires congress or a state legislature to grant peremptory challenges to an accused. Nor does either constitution provide for any particular method of securing to an accused the right to exercise the peremptory challenges which a legislative body grants him. Holmes v. United States, 134 F. (2d) 125 (1943); Philbrook v. United States, 117 F. (2d) 632 (1941); 31 Am. Jur., Jury § 230. The matter of peremptory challenges rests entirely with the legislature. People v. Kassis, 145 Misc. 493 , 259 N.Y.S. 339 (1931); People v. Doran, 246 N. Y. 409 , 159 N. E. 379 (1927); 31 Am. Jur., Jury § 230. It is limited only by the necessity of having an impartial jury. 31 Am. Jur., Jury § 230.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.