Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 Fla. 494 - Brown v. State

Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1892

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
March 1933
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1933

7 state decisions

3018921900191019201930decided

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.

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

  1. ““It is evident that the judgment of this court which it is sought to' have opened was rendered without irregularity of procedure, and upon the true record of the cause as it then stood in the Criminal Court of Record, and that our mandate had been filed in that court before any motion was made there to amend the record upon which the trial, or review, of the case was had here. There is not only not any error of law in our decision, but our exercise of jurisdiction has been entirely regular and is not the result of either mistake, surprise, imposition, misrepresentation or fraud. The record of that court as it was and as all the parties knew it to be, was regularly brought here and the cause •duly heard. The State was content to let the record stand thus in the lower court and to risk a trial upon it here. It was entirely competent for the State to have had the record of that tribunal, if it did not speak the truth, amended while the proceedings were pending here, and by bringing the amended record here they could have arrested oUr action on the original record before we rendered judgment; Stephen vs. Bradley, 23 Fla. 393 ; 2 South. Rep. 667 ; Freeman on Judgments (4th ed.) sec. 73; Dunbar vs. Hitchcock, 3 Maule & Selw. 591; Richardson vs. Mellish, 3 Bing. 334; Richardson vs. Mel lish, 3 Bing. 346; Mellish v. Richardson, 7 Barn. & Cress., 819; Pickwood vs. Wright; 1 H. Bl. 643; Freel vs. State, 21 Ark. 212 ; Binus v. State, 35 Ark. 118 ; Exchange National Bank vs. Allen, 68 Mo”
    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.