Case Citator › Matthews v. Evatt

Matthews v. Evatt

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
105 F.3d 907
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
49 of 49
Citing cases (total)
49
Treatment dates
2005
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Matthews v. Evatt was overruled in part on comparative juror analysis in Batson claims. The Supreme Court's Miller-El v. Dretke required courts to consider comparisons between struck Black jurors and similarly situated non-Black jurors.
More on how this was screened

The Fourth Circuit identified the conflict with Matthews in United States v. Barnette. All 49 flagged citations have been read; the one confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

49 later cases cite Matthews v. Evatt; 49 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Matthews v. Evatt?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court required comparative juror analysis in Batson claims, displacing Matthews's contrary rule on that issue.

    Miller-El v. Dretke · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    More powerful than these bare statistics, however, are side-by-side comparisons of some black venire panelists who were struck and white panelists allowed to serve. If a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a black panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar nonblack who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove purposeful discrimination to be considered at Batson’s third step.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Matthews v. Evatt and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace