State v. Nicklasson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably State v. Middleton (1999), State v. Johns (2000)
2 federal appellate · 65 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Batson v. Kentucky · North Carolina v. Alford · Edwards v. Arizona · Gregg v. Georgia
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the trial [court] is vested with the discretion to judge the appropriateness of specific 5 questions, and is generally vested with wide discretion in the conduct of voir dire.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“not to allow attorney participation in death-qualification voir dire; refusing to excuse for cause a venireperson who did not ultimately serve on the jury; to refer to some of the defense expert testimony as “junk science” (outside the presence of the jury); to express criticism of a member of the defense team; to comment that one defense witness’s testimony was “refreshing” and to state during the questioning of another defense witness “let’s get on to something that’s going to assist this jury in making a decision” after overruling an objection by the state; and to “ridicule” penalty-phase witnesses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jones“First, defendant raises a challenge to the state’s peremptory strikes based on race or gender and identifies the cognizable group to which the venirepersons belong. The state must then provide a reasonably specific and clear, race-neutral explanation for the strike. Once the state provides an acceptable reason, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the state’s reasons are pretextual and that the strikes are actually racially motivated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Nettles
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.