Berry v. Phelps’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

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

1. “To create a fact issue warranting an evidentiary hearing, a statistical proffer must be “so strong that the results will permit no other inference but that they are the product of racially discriminatory intent or purpose.” Smith v. Balkcom, 671 F.2d 858, 859 , modifying 660 F.2d 573 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882 , 103 S.Ct. 181 , 74 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982). Prejean’s tender does not meet this standard. Smith v. Balkcom, id., and Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1978), remain the touchstone of our analysis. In both Smith and Spinkellink , we said the proof must establish specific acts evidencing intentional or purposeful discrimination “against the petitioner•” on the basis of race. Id. at 614 n. 40, quoted in Smith, 660 F.2d at 585 (emphasis supplied in Smith).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 667 F. Supp. 314 - Hill v. Thigpen