Chamberlain v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2011 · most notably Martinez v. California (1980), 13 Cal. 3d 518 - Brown v. Pitchess (1975)
6 federal appellate · 32 state decisions — followed in 12 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 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · McNeese v. Board of Education for Community Unit School District 187 Cahokia · Beauregard v. Wingard · State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams · Chamberlain v. State ex rel. Brown
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[AJfter considering the Congressional Records pertinent to this legislation which disclose its historical background, the temper of the times and climate of opinion held and expressed in this regard, we are firmly convinced that there is abundant indication that these statutes creating this action were directed to the federal trial forum, not the respective States. In any event, no policy of this State can be found in its history, judicial or otherwise, that would require the judi cial branch of the government of Tennessee to entertain such action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is abundantly clear that one reason the legislation was passed was to afford a federal right in federal courts because, by reason of prejudice, passion, neglect, intolerance or otherwise, state laws might not be enforced and the claims of citizens to the enjoyment of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment might be denied by the state agencies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.