Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 691 So. 2d 1180 - Davis v. State

691 So. 2d 1180 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 753 So. 2d 29 - Rodriguez v. State (2000), Manning v. State (2000)

40 state decisions

190199720002010decided

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 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Alimeg, Inc. v. Shlim · 457 So. 2d 481 - State v. Neil · Melbourne v. State · 522 So. 2d 18 - State v. Slappy

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

  1. “(1) the objecting party must make a timely objection, must show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and must request that the court ask the striking party the reasons for the strike; (2) if step (1) is met, the court must ask the proponent of the strike to explain the reason for the strike; (3) if the reason given is facially race-neutral and the court believes that given all the circumstances surrounding the strike, the explanation is not a pretext, the strike will be sustained.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “impossible . . . to determine the question of pretext”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Voir dire proceedings are extraordinarily rich in diversity and no rigid set of rules will work in every case. Accordingly, reviewing courts should keep in mind two principles when enforcing the above guidelines. First, peremptories are presumed to be exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner. Second, the trial court's decision turns primarily on an assessment of credibility and will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. The right to an impartial jury guaranteed by article I, section 16, is best safeguarded not by an arcane maze of reversible error traps, but by reason and common sense.”
    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.