Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 721 So. 2d 590 - Thorson v. State

721 So. 2d 590 - Thorson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
6
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably 741 So. 2d 894 - McGilberry v. State (1999), 877 So. 2d 1254 - Lynch v. State (2004)

1 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

3901998200020102020decided

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 Batson v. Kentucky · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Hernandez v. New York · Refre v. United States · Commonwealth v. Soares

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

  1. “First, the defendant must establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the selection of jury members. The prosecution then has the burden of stating a racially neutral reason for the challenged strike. If the State gives a racially neutral explanation, the defendant can rebut the explanation. Finally, the trial court must make a factual finding to determine if the prosecution engaged in purposeful discrimination. If the defendant fails to rebut, the trial judge must base his decision on the reasons given by the State.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We give great deference to the trial court's findings of whether or not a peremptory challenge was race-neutral.... Such deference is necessary because finding that a striking party engaged in discrimination is largely a factual finding and thus should be accorded appropriate deference on appeal.... Indeed, we will not overrule a trial court on a Batson ruling unless the record indicates that the ruling was clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence....”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “we will not overrule a trial court on a Batson ruling unless the record indicates that the ruling was clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.”
    5 later decisions 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.