Jenkins v. Parrish’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably 466 So. 2d 856 - Hall v. Hilbun (1985), State v. Winfield (2006)
28 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 33 Ill. 2d 326 - Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital · Reilly v. Pinkus · Morrison v. MacNamara · 18 Ariz. App. 75 - Purcell v. Zimbelman · 11 Utah 2d 411 - Hales v. Peterson
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'it is a simple matter to obviate any problem of bias simply by excusing the prospective juror and selecting another,'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“(4) the existence of any social, legal, business, fiduciary or other relationship between the prospective juror and any party, witness or person alleged to have been victimized or injured by the defendant, which relationship when viewed objectively, would suggest to reasonable minds that the prospective juror would be unable or unwilling to return a verdict which would be free of favoritism. [[Image here]] (18) having formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged; or (14) that a state of mind exists on the part of the juror with reference to the cause, or to either party, which will prevent him from acting impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging. ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Moton · State v. Wach“Mrs. Eddins’ admissions of expressed bias in the instant case should have resulted in a successful challenge for cause pursuant to Rule 47(f)(6). Forcing plaintiff to use one of his peremptory challenges to remove the juror resulted in prejudicial error. See Crawford v. Manning [(Utah 1975), 542 P.2d 1091 ]. As stated in Wasco v. Frankel, 116 Ariz. 288, at 290 , 569 P.2d 230, at 232 (1977): Peremptory challenges form an effective method of assuring the fairness of a jury trial. Hence, forcing a party to use his peremptory challenges to strike jurors who should have been stricken for cause denies the litigant a substantial right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams
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.