Ford v. Seabold’s Empirical Analysis
841 F.2d 677 · 1988
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 3 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Coe v. Bell (1998), State v. McNeill (1998)
51 federal appellate · 3 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · United States v. Bagley · Duncan v. State of Louisiana
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“group in the community, Rattigan offers no evidence to establish the second prong--that the representation of blacks in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community. He offers nothing to rebut the conclusion reached in the district court clerk's memorandum that”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the group is defined and limited by some factor ( i.e., that the group has a definite composition such as by race or sex); (2) that a common thread or basic similarity in attitude, ideas or experience runs through the group; and (3) that there is a community of interest among members of the group such that the group's interests cannot be adequately represented if the group is excluded from the jury selection process.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.