Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 924 SW2D 892 - State v. Lynn

State v. Lynn’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2018

13 state decisions

70199620002010decided

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 Offutt v. United States · State v. Harris · Howard v. State · State v. Strouth · State v. Trusty

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We do not question the integrity of the court officials in this case. Undoubtedly, their motives and intentions were honorable. We acknowledge that they were called upon to perform an infrequently used procedure, that of impaneling a special venire. Nonetheless, the statutes are explicit. The procedures required are detailed. This judicial proceeding had already been discolored by the trial judge’s earlier findings of jury tampering. The fundamental principles of impartiality, disinterestedness, and fairness are even more essential in a case, such as this, in which a previous attempt to circumvent fairness has occurred. Often, the public sees in our justice system something substantially different from what.actually exists. It is the appearance that often undermines or resurrects faith in the system. To promote public confidence in the fairness of the system and to preserve the system’s integrity in the eyes of the litigants and the public, “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 , 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 , 99 L.Ed. 11 (1954).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In the event by reason of the disqualification of proposed jurors, or other cause, the required number of jurors cannot be obtained from the venire, the clerk of the court shall produce in open court the jury box, and the box shall be opened by the court and there shall be drawn therefrom, as directed by the court, the number of names deemed by the judge sufficient to complete the juries. This process shall, if necessary, continue until the grand and petit juries are completed; but the judge of the court instead of following the last mentioned procedure may, if the judge shall deem proper, furnish a sufficient number of names of persons to be summoned to the sheriff, or the judge may, if the judge thinks proper, direct the sheriff to summon a sufficient number to complete the juries.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “([F]ive (5) days prior to the appropriate term of court, the clerks of the criminal and circuit courts or the jury commissioners shall publish a true copy of the regular jury panel list.... In addition thereto, the clerks of the criminal and circuit courts or the jury commissioners shall cause to be made a sufficient number of copies of such jury panel list, which copies shall be placed in the clerk’s office and available for general distribution).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.