Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 1993 · most notably State v. Banks (1978), INTERNATIONAL UNION, ETC. v. Russell (1956)
49 state decisions
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 State v. Hefflin · Hughes v. State · State Ex Rel. Grandstaff v. Gore · 7 Smith & H. 664 - Tipton v. State · McCummings v. State
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the universal rule that a variance between pleading and proof in a criminal case is not material—where the variance is not of a character that would have misled the defendant at trial. Brown v. State, 186 Tenn. 378 , 210 S.W.2d 670, 675 (1948).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Yates · State v. Hullum“T.C.A. § “40-2801 . . . Any person who has either been three (3) times convicted within this state of felonies, not less than two (2) of which are among those specified in §§ 39-604, 39-605, 39-609, 39-610, 39-3708 or 40-2712, or were for a crime punishable by death under existing law, but for which the death penalty was not inflicted, or who has been three (3) times convicted under the laws of any other state, government or country of crimes, not less than two (2) of which, if they had been committed in this state, would have been among those specified in said §§ 39-604, 39-605, 39-609, 39-610, 39-3708 or 40-2712, or would have been punishable by death under existing laws, but for which the death penalty was not inflicted, shall be considered, for the purposes of this chapter, and is declared to be an habitual criminal . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ While the question seems to be one of first impression in this State, our case of Moss v. State [of Tennessee], 131 Tenn. 94, 109 , 173 S.W. 859 , 862, Ann.Cas.1916B, 1, observes that other jurisdictions consider the receipt of the verdict to be ‘merely a ministerial act’. - “In keeping with the decided trend of the courts to disregard highly technical objections when it is clear that no prejudice to defendants has resulted, it seems proper to reject the theory that such verdict so received is vitiated, when it is apparent, as in this case, that the verdict received by the substituted judge is the one which the jury would have returned to the judge who presided at the trial.” 186 Tenn. 391 -392, 210 S.W.2d 676 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. State
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.