State v. Delk’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
March 1997
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Bullock v. United States · Zeigler v. Florida · State v. Banks · 402 So. 2d 365 - Zeigler v. State
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any party may challenge a prospective juror for cause if: (1) There exists any ground for challenge for cause provided by law; or (2) The prospective juror’s exposure to potentially prejudicial information makes him unacceptable as a juror. Both the degree of exposure and the prospective juror’s testimony as to his state of mind shall be considered in determining acceptability. A prospective juror who states that he will be unable to overcome his preconceptions shall be subject to challenge for cause no matter how slight his exposure. If he has seen or heard and if he remembers information that will be developed in the course of the trial, or that may be inadmissible but is not so prejudicial as to create a substantial risk that his judgment will be affected, his acceptability shall depend on whether his testimony as to impartiality is believed. If he admits to having formed an opinion, he shall be subject to challenge for cause unless the examination shows unequivocally that he can be impartial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Shepherd“This identical issue was found to be without merit by our state Supreme Court in Delk v. State.... That holding is thus the law of the case and must be followed here unless clearly erroneous. [[Image here]] The Supreme Court’s decision on the relevance of the evidence was echoed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Delk v. Atkinson, 665 F.2d 90, 100 (6th Cir.1981). Since the prior holding on this issue cannot be said to be clearly erroneous, it must also be applied to the present case. 28”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jefferson
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.