Floyd Lc v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis
996 F.2d 947 · 1993
Citation profile
23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
March 2007
most recently cited
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Swain v. State of Alabama · Duren v. Missouri · Castaneda v. Partida · Angrist v. United States
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he mere fact that one identifiable group of individuals votes in a lower proportion than the rest of the population does not make a jury selection system illegal or unconstitutional.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e have consistently upheld the use of voter registration lists to select jury pools.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To establish a prima facie equal protection violation, Floyd must show (1) blacks are a “recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment;” (2) blacks were substantially underrepresented in jury pools over a significant period of time; and (3) the jury-selection process is “susceptible of abuse or is not racially neutral.” ... Floyd has failed to establish the third prong of the equal protection test by showing a discriminatory purpose in the jury-selection process ... Floyd concedes there was no intentional discrimination in the random selection of jurors from the voter registration lists, but again contends proportionately fewer blacks register to vote. The use of voter registration lists was intended to eliminate discriminatory and arbitrary selection practices, and Floyd has not shown that blacks are prevented from registering to vote ... Thus, the sole use of voter registration lists to select jury pools does not violate equal protection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wainwright v. Norris
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.