Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 Colo. 412 - Brown v. People

Brown v. People’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2020

18 state decisions

8019511960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Wright v. People · Kolkman v. People · Smalley v. People · Robinson v. People · Wolff v. People

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

  1. ““[T]he point of the whole objection comes down to the one question: Did reversible error result from determination of identity on the habitual criminal counts as to all three defendants before the same jury ... ? The answer is in the negative. To hold otherwise would be but to belittle the whole jury system and unfairly minimize not only the intelligence, but likewise the integrity of regularly selected and duly sworn jurors. Jurors, as the triers of facts, are as much a part of the court as is the judge, and there is no more reason to hold a jury disqualified to fully determine the several issues of a case, when separately presented to it under proper instructions, than to disqualify the judge from presiding throughout the entire proceeding. “Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that proceedings before the jury on the habitual criminal counts are not in determination of whether defendant is or is not guilty of the crime, but go only to issues pertaining to identity of the defendant as being the individual named in such count as one who was previously convicted of a felony.””
    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.