State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Loggins v. Thomas (2011), State v. Hokanson (2012)
2 federal appellate · 37 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 Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · Swain v. State of Alabama · Purkett v. Elem
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[w]e are extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent....'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The court supported its conclusions with findings that the responses of Juror 43 about the fairness of the criminal justice system toward African Americans and his cousin’s conviction were not “forthcoming.” The district court noted that Juror 43 did not provide specific reasons or facts underlying his views on these subjects. And the district court expressed concern that Juror 43 believed that his cousin may have been wrongfully convicted, and the juror worked with the victim’s uncle. On this record, we cannot say that the findings of the district court are clearly erroneous. We have consistently held that a family member’s involvement with the legal system is a legitimate race-neutral reason for the State to exercise a peremptory challenge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin v. Symmes“(a) First, the party making the objection must make a prima facie showing that the responding party exercised its peremptory challenge[] on the basis of race or gender.... (b) Second, if the prima facie showing has been made, the responding party must articulate a [race-neutral] explanation for exercising the peremptory ehal-lenge[ ].... (c) Third, if the court determines that a [race-neutral] explanation has been articulated, the objecting party must prove that the explanation is pretextual.... If purposeful discrimination is proved, the objection must be sustained; otherwise the objection must be overruled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rivers
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.