State v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2021
2 federal appellate · 13 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 State v. Bishop · State v. James · City Consumer Services, Inc. v. Peters · Smith v. State · State v. Anderson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(e)(4) The existence of any social, legal, business, fiduciary or other relationship between the prospective juror and any party, witness or person alleged to have been victimized or injured by the defendant, which relationship when viewed objectively, would suggest to reasonable minds that the prospective juror would be unable or unwilling to return a verdict which would be free of favoritism .... [[Image here]] (e)(14) Conduct, responses, state of mind or other cireumstances that reasonably lead the court to conclude the juror is not likely to act impartially.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[A] juror, who through a personal association with a witness or party has developed a relationship of affection, respect, or esteem, cannot be deemed disinterested, indifferent, or impartial'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] state of mind exists on the part of the juror with reference to the cause, or to either party, which will prevent him from acting impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging; but no person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon public rumor, statements in public journals or common notoriety, if it satisfactorily appears to the court that the juror can and will, notwithstanding such opinion, act impartially and fairly upon the matter to be submitted to him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kavmark
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.