Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 729 SO2D 57 - State v. Jones

State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably 742 So. 2d 671 - State v. Hollins (1999), 83 So. 3d 285 - State v. Seals (2011)

29 state decisions

260199920002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Batson v. Kentucky · Washington v. Davis · Purkett v. Elem · Holland v. Illinois

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

  1. “If an objection is made that the state or defense has excluded a juror solely on the basis of race, and a prima facie case supporting that objection is made by the objecting party, the court may demand a satisfactory racially neutral reason for the exercise of the challenge, unless the court is satisfied that such reason is apparent from the voir dire examination of the juror. Such demand and disclosure, if required by the court, shall be made outside of the hearing of any juror or prospective juror.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A trial judge's determination pertaining to purposeful discrimination rests largely on credibility evaluations, so his findings are entitled to great deference by the reviewing court. The trial judge, advantaged by observing the characteristics and demeanor of the attorneys and prospective jurors, occupies the best position for deciding whether a discriminatory objective underlies peremptory challenges. (citations omitted)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be pretexts for purposeful discrimination.”
    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.