Goode v. Shoukfeh’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 174 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Bocquet v. Herring (1998), 24 Cal. 4th 243 - People v. Ayala (2000)
3 federal appellate · 174 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo))
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Hernandez v. New York · Powers v. Ohio
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to guiding principles,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At the first step of the process, the opponent of the peremptory challenge must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimina-tion_During the second step of the process, the burden shifts to the party who has exercised the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation.... It is not until the third step that the persuasiveness of the justification for the challenge becomes rele vant. At the third step of the process, the trial court must determine if the party challenging the strike has proven purposeful racial discrimination, and the trial court may believe or not believe the explanation offered by the party who exercised the peremptory challenge. It is at this stage that implausible justifications for striking potential jurors "may (and probably will) be found [by the trial court] to be pretexts for purposeful discrimination.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has emphasized that "the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the [peremptory] strike.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“•the opponent of the peremptory strike must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; •the burden then shifts to the party who has exercised the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation; •if a race-neutral explanation is offered, the trial court must determine if the party challenging the strike has proven purposeful racial discrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Welch v. McLean
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.