Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably Williams v. State (1979), Montague v. State (1977)
42 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 Chambers v. Maroney · Luckett v. State · Simmons v. West Haven Housing Authority · Gordon v. United States · Barker 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The right to such a hearing is not absolute or automatic but is dependent upon the presence of reasonable cause to suspect that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial... [T]he trial judge concluded that there was no reasonable ground for believing the defendant to be insane or incompetent to stand trial and under these circumstances, he was not required to hold a hearing contemplated under the statute.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Budd v. State · Powell v. State““Hearing to determine defendant’s sanity during trial.— When at any time before the final submission of any criminal cause to the court or jury trying the same, the court, either from its own knowledge or upon the suggestion of any person, has reasonable ground for believing the defendant to be insane, the court shall immediately fix a time for a hearing to determine the question of the defendant’s sanity and shall appoint two [2] competent disinterested physicians who shall examine the defendant upon the question of his sanity and testify concerning the same at the hearing. At the hearing, other evidence may be introduced to prove the defendant’s sanity or insanity. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Montague v. State““Both the Indiana and United States Supreme Courts have been more tolerant of warrantless searches of automobiles, under exigent circumstances, than of other places. ‘ * * * automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office, provided that there is probable cause to believe that the car contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize.’ Chambers v. Maroney (1970) 399 U.S. 42, 48 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 , reh. den. 400 U.S. 856 , 91 S.Ct. 23 , 27 L.Ed.2d 94 .” (Other citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bradford 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.