Hayes v. Missouri
Citations
- 120 U.S. 68
- 7 S. Ct. 350
- 30 L. Ed. 578
- 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1942
Syllabus
<p>A statute of a state which provides that in capital cases, in cities having a population of over 100,000 inhabitants, the state shall be allowed fifteen peremptory challenges to jurors, while elsewhere in the state it is allowed in such cases only eight peremptory challenges, does not deny the equal protection of the laws to a person accused and tried for murder in a city containing over 100,000 inhabitants; and there was no error in refusing to limit the state’s peremptory challenges to eight.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- referring to “an unfortunate dispo- sition on the part of business men to escape from jury duty”
- referring to \an unfortunate disposition on the part of business men to escape from jury duty\
- explaining impartiality requires that “scales are to be evenly held” between criminal defendant and State
- ‘‘The accused cannot complain if he is still tried by an impartial jury. He can demand nothing more.’’
- \The accused cannot complain if he is still tried by an impartial jury. He can demand nothing more.\
- systems of criminal procedure in cities or rural districts may be different without violating fourteenth amendment
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Field
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
288 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1986-04-30· cited 16,401×
- Witherspoon v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1968-06-03· cited 4,818×
- Swain v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1965-03-08· cited 3,183×
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of AgricultureSupreme Court· 2008-06-09· cited 1,599×
- Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.Supreme Court· 1991-06-03· cited 1,403×
- Georgia v. McCollumSupreme Court· 1992-06-18· cited 1,235×
- State v. BrownWashington Supreme Court· 1997-07-24· cited 632×
- Truax v. CorriganSupreme Court· 1921-12-19· cited 592×
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court· 1897-01-18· cited 580×
- Commonwealth v. SoaresMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1979-03-08· cited 576×
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court· 1902-03-10· cited 575×
- Oregon v. MitchellSupreme Court· 1970-12-21· cited 575×
- State v. NeilSupreme Court of Florida· 1984-09-27· cited 507×
- Graham v. West VirginiaSupreme Court· 1912-05-13· cited 498×
- Holland v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1990-02-20· cited 489×
- People v. GlasperIllinois Supreme Court· 2009-06-18· cited 483×
- Reynolds v. DormireEighth Circuit· 2011-02-18· cited 445×
- Garcia v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1996-03-27· cited 418×
- John A. Spinkellink, 1 v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Offender RehabilitationFifth Circuit· 1978-08-21· cited 403×
- Stroud v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1919-11-24· cited 398×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.