Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 F.3d 288 - McCain v. Gramley

McCain v. Gramley’s Empirical Analysis

96 F.3d 288 · 1996

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Tankleff v. Da Senkowski (1998), Harris v. Kuhlmann (2003)

21 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

280199620002010decided

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 · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Swain v. State of Alabama · Hernandez v. New York · Purkett v. Elem

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

  1. “To survive a Batson challenge, unlike a challenge for cause, a peremptory strike need not be based on a strong or good reason, only founded on a reason other than race or gender. [In addition,] "unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the [nonmovant's] explanation, the reason will be deemed race-neutral.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]here there are only a few members of a racial group on the venire panel and one party strikes each one of them,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a race-neutral explanation shifts the burden back to [the movant] to prove intentional discrimination”
    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.