Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 957 F.2d 487 - Williams v. Chrans

Williams v. Chrans’s Empirical Analysis

957 F.2d 487 · 1992

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
3
states following
May 2016
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably 192 Ill. 2d 307 - People v. Easley (2000), State v. Hinton (1993)

14 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

210199220002010decided

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 · Hernandez v. New York · Griffith v. Kentucky · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Delaware v. New York

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

  1. “"Gangs with black members will frequently operate in areas populated primarily by residents who are also black. Allowing the exclusion of black venirepersons simply because their home or place of work is in a gang area has an enormous potential to disproportionately exclude black jurors in most cases involving black gang members." Williams, 957 F.2d at 489-90 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a]dequate explanations for exercising a peremptory strike may include a prosecutor's 'intuitive assumptions that are not fairly quantifiable.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried.”
    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.