Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
37 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TBgreen2 sentences2021First, “a party alleging gender discrimination must make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination before the party exercising the challenge 4 is required to explain the basis for the strike.” Brawner v. State, 872 So. 2d 1 , 10 (Miss. 2004) (citing J.E.B, 511 U.S. at 145). 2020The United States Supreme Court has held that “a party alleging gender discrimination must make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination before the party exercising the challenge is required to explain the basis for the strike.” J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 144 -45 (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 ). | 6 | 10 |
McFarland v. Stategreen2 sentences2007McFarland, 707 So.2d at 171 . 2007McFarland, 707 So.2d at 171 . | 1 | 5 |
Flowers v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“After a prima facie case has been made, the party exercising the challenge has the burden to articulate a race-neutral explanation for excluding the potential juror.” Flowers v. State, 144 So. 3d 188, 196-97 (¶29) (Miss. 2017“After a prima facie case has been made, the party exercising the challenge has the burden to articulate a race-neutral explanation for excluding the potential juror.” Flowers v. State, 144 So.3d 188, 196-97 (¶29) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Snow v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Snow v. State, 800 So.2d 472, 478 (Miss.2001), Once a prima facie case has been established, the party exercising the challenge has the burden to articulate a race-neutral explanation for excluding that potential juror. | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Stategreen1 sentence2006McFarland, 707 So.2d at 171 (¶ 14). "`[A]ny reason which is not facially violative of equal protection will suffice.'" Lynch, 877 So.2d at 1271 (¶ 49) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. State
green
2 sentences2003Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723-24 ; Stewart, 662 So.2d at 558 . 2002Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723 - 24; Stewart, 662 So.2d at 558 . | 18 | 1993–2003 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2020The United States Supreme Court has held that “a party alleging gender discrimination must make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination before the party exercising the challenge is required to explain the basis for the strike.” J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 144 -45 (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 ). 2008Id. | 16 | 1990–2020 |
Hernandez v. New York
green
2 sentences1996Referencing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991), the Court further held that "[w]hen an explanation is required, it need not rise to the level of a `for cause' challenge; rather, it merely must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender, and the proffered explanation may not be pretextual." J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 144, 114 S.Ct. at 1430 , 128 L.Ed.2d at 107 . 1996Referencing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991), the Court further held that "[w]hen an explanation is required, it need not rise to the level of a `for cause' challenge; rather, it merely must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender, and the proffered explanation may not be pretextual." J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 144, 114 S.Ct. at 1430 , 128 L.Ed.2d at 107 . | 3 | 1991–1996 |
Brawner v. State
green
1 sentence2021First, “a party alleging gender discrimination must make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination before the party exercising the challenge 4 is required to explain the basis for the strike.” Brawner v. State, 872 So. 2d 1 , 10 (Miss. 2004) (citing J.E.B, 511 U.S. at 145). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.