Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2017
20 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 Hernandez v. New York · Purkett v. Elem · Melbourne v. State · 691 So. 2d 1180 - Davis 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is nothing in Melbourne which requires trial judges to articulate their thought process on the issue of pretext.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Young v. State · Jones v. State“First, the objecting party must make a timely objection, show that the venire person is a member of a distinct protected group, and request that the court ask the striking party to provide a reason for the strike. Second, the burden shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral or gender-neutral explanation. Third, if the explanation is facially race-neutral or gender-neutral, the court must determine whether the explanation is a pretext “given all the circumstances surrounding the strike.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“There is no specific threshold of neutrality that must be satisfied by the party explaining the peremptory strike at step 2 of the Melbourne analysis. At this second step there are only race-neutral reasons and those that are race-based.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Cobb v. State
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.