Powers v. Palacios’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably Goode v. Shoukfeh (1997), City of Beaumont v. Bouillion (1995)
31 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District)
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Powers v. Ohio · Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. · Thaddeus Donald Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc. · Powers v. Palacios
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The Court] The Court will ask Mr. Hall. Were you motivated by race to strike her? [Mr. Hall] Well— [The Court] I don’t know how you’re going to answer that. [Mr. Hall] All I can stay [sic] is not improperly but it certainly figured into it, but it was not the sole reason for striking her, no.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, Powers established that opposing counsel had exercised a peremptory challenge discriminatorily. [footnote omitted] Such ‘automatic invocation of race stereotypes retards [our] progress [as a multiracial democracy] and causes continued hurt and injury.’ Edmonson [v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc.], — U.S. at-, 111 S.Ct. at 2088 . We hold that equal protection is denied when race is a factor in counsel’s exercise of a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. State“Here, Powers established that opposing counsel had exercised a peremptory challenge discriminatorily. Such “automatic invocation of race stereotypes retards [our] progress [as a multiracial democracy] and causes continued hurt and injury.” ... We hold that equal protection is denied when race is a fac tor in counsel's exercise of a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Guzman 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.