Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 973 F.2d 116 - Brown v. Kelly

Brown v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis

973 F.2d 116 · 1992

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
10
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Tankleff v. Da Senkowski (1998), United States v. Farhane (2011)

17 federal appellate · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states

320199220002010decided

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 Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Griffith v. Kentucky · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board

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

  1. “An impression of the conduct and demeanor of a prospective juror during the voir dire may provide a legitimate basis for the exercise of a peremptory challenge.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]here are cases where the passage of time may impair a trial court's ability to make a reasoned determination of the prosecutor's state of mind when the jury was selected. Where such demonstrably exists, there must be a new trial.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] federal court reviewing a habeas petition will not inevitably be unable to evaluate the prosecutor's intent in exercising his peremptory challenges, despite the absence of contemporaneous evidence, and if appropriate findings may conveniently be made, this should be done.”
    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.