Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 765 P.2d 839 - State v. Worthen

State v. Worthen’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
6
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

1 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably State v. James (1991), Bellamy v. State (2008)

1 district · 35 state decisions

1901988199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Pemberton · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. · Oscanyan v. Arms 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Although a trial judge has some discretion in limiting voir dire examinations, that discretion should be liberally exercised in favor of allowing counsel to elicit information from prospective jurors. Indeed, the fairness of a trial may depend on the right of counsel to ask voir dire questions designed to discover attitudes and biases, both conscious and subconscious, even though they ‘would not have supported a challenge for cause.’”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Although a trial judge has some discretion in limiting voir dire examinations, ... that discretion should be liberally exercised in favor of allowing counsel to elicit information from prospective jurors .... Indeed, the fairness of a trial may depend on the right of counsel to ask voir dire questions designed to discover attitudes and biases, both conscious and subconscious, even though they would not have supported a challenge for came_ Juror attitudes revealed during voir dire may indicate dimly perceived, yet deeply rooted, psychological biases or prejudices that may not rise to the level of a for-cause challenge but nevertheless support a peremptory challenge.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “'to exercise his peremptory challenges more intelligently.’”
    3 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.