Hursey Davis v. Warden, Joliet Correctional Institution at Stateville Michael Lane, Director, Department of Corrections, State of Illinois’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2019
2 federal appellate · 6 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Chapman v. State of California · Glasser v. United States · Batson v. Kentucky · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This is not to say, however, that defendant has failed to prove that blacks were underrepresented on the venire. The Supreme Court, using raw census statistics that included the underaged and unqualified, held that a 23% disparity in the general population and the number of blacks on a grand jury showed unconstitutional discrimina tion against blacks [in Turner, 396 U.S. at 360 , 90 S.Ct. at 540 , 24 L.Ed.2d at 579 ],”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. St. Cloud v. Class“The census figures arguably are over-inclusive because they include children and other persons ineligible for jury service. The majority of jury discrimination cases that we found compare the adult voting population with the jury lists drawn ... The overinelusiveness of defendant’s statistic calls into question the weight a court should give to this evidence of unfair and unreasonable representation on the venire.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. St. Cloud v. Class“(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community, (2) that the representation of this group in the venires from which the juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation must be due to the systematic exclusion of this group in the jury-selection process.”
1 later decision 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.