13 Cal. 3d 518 - Brown v. Pitchess’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 9 district · 101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably 16 Cal. 3d 834 - Williams v. Horvath (1976), 17 Cal. 3d 908 - Payne v. Superior Court (1976)
15 federal appellate · 9 district · 101 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Johnson v. Avery · Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney · District of Columbia v. Carter · Grubb v. Public Utilities Commission · Claflin v. Houseman
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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Unless Congress confers exclusive jurisdiction on federal courts, state courts competent to exercise it have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce federal law in civil actions. [Citing authority.] "Section 1983 does not itself address the question of jurisdiction. The jurisdictional provision governing section 1983 28 United States Code section 1343 (3) confers `original jurisdiction' on the federal district courts. The phrase `original jurisdiction' means the power to entertain cases in the first instance, as distinguished from appellate jurisdiction; it does not mean exclusive jurisdiction. [Citing authority.] When intending to confer exclusive, as well as original, jurisdiction on the federal district courts, Congress is quite capable of making itself understood. For example, section 1338(a) of title 28 of the United States Code provides: `The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases.'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re T.L.G. · Matter of TLG“`the existence of [concurrent] jurisdiction creates the duty to exercise it'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (3) to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; . . [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kish v. Wright
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.