United States v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 1038 · 1988
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2004 · most notably JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB (1994), United States v. Tipton (1996)
21 federal appellate · 32 state decisions — followed in 16 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
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Swain v. State of Alabama · Griffith v. Kentucky · Taylor v. 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Clearly, if the Supreme Court in Batson had desired, it could have abolished the peremptory challenge or prohibited the exercise of the challenges on the basis of race, gender, age or other group classification. A careful examination of the Batson opinion, however, leads this Court to the firm conclusion that, in light of the important position of the peremptory challenge in our jury system, the Court intended Batson to apply to prohibit the exercise of peremptory challenges on the basis of race only.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Stariks v. State · Fisher v. State“in light of the important position of the peremptory challenge in our jury system, the Court intended Batson to apply to prohibit the exercise of peremptory challenges on the basis of race only.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"Although the Court in Batson relaxed the evidentiary burden of Swain [ v. Alabama , 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965)], it offered no intimation that it was extending the equal protection safeguards involving peremptory strikes to gender: 'By requiring trial courts to be sensitive to the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, our decision enforces the mandate of equal protection and furthers the ends of justice.' 106 S.Ct. at 1724 (emphasis added). While the strictures of the Equal Protection Clause undoubtedly apply to prohibit discrimination due to gender in other contexts, there is no evidence to suggest that the Supreme Court would apply normal equal protection principles to the unique situation involving peremptory challenges.”
2 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.