United States v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
65 F.3d 918 · 1995
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Virginia v. Black (2003), Darryl Tolbert v. Glenda Page Parole Officer Interstate Parole Unit California Department of Corrections (1999)
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 42 U.S.C. § 3631
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Pinkerton v. United States
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“great deference to the district court's finding as to the existence of a prima facie case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he trial judge, with his experience in voir dire, is in by far the best position to make the Batson prima facie ease determination. And, because of his unique awareness of the totality of the circumstances surrounding voir dire, that determination must be treated as a finding of fact entitled to great deference on review. De novo review of the record by this court would be inappropriate because the cold record is simply not enough.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Valdez v. People“the trial court should consider all relevant circumstances. For example, a “pattern” of strikes against black jurors included in the particular venire might give rise to an inference of discrimination. Similarly, the [party’s] questions and statements during voir dire examination and in exercising his challenges may support or refute an inference of discriminatory purpose. These examples are merely illustrative.”
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.