Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 94 So. 3d 452 - Hayes v. State (2012), 824 So. 2d 977 - Jenkins v. State (2002)
32 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Swain v. State of Alabama · Hernandez v. New York · Lewis v. United States · Paul v. A. Levy & J. Zentner Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) alleged group bias not shown to be shared by the juror in question, (2) failure to examine the juror or perfunctory examination, assuming neither the trial court nor opposing counsel had questioned the juror, (3) singling the juror out for special questioning designed to evoke a certain response, (4) the prosecutor's reason is unrelated to the facts of the case, and (5) a challenge based on reasons equally applicable to juror [sic] who were not challenged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Since Melbourne , both the supreme court and this court have acknowledged and upheld the trial court's broad discretion in ruling on the exercise of peremptory challenges. See Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1040 , 118 S.Ct. 1337 , 140 L.Ed.2d 499 and 523 U.S. 1097 , 118 S.Ct. 1582 , 140 L.Ed.2d 797 (1998); State v. Holiday, 682 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1996); King v. Byrd, 716 So.2d 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Anderson v. State, 711 So.2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Harrison v. Emanuel, 694 So.2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Nelson v. State, 688 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Where we have reversed a trial court's decision, the trial court's assessment of credibility was severely compromised by an inaccurate recollection of the questioning during voir dire."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Foster 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.