Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 F.2d 30 - Brubaker v. Dickson

Brubaker v. Dickson’s Empirical Analysis

310 F.2d 30 · 1962

Citation profile

232
cited by 232 later decisions
20
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

111 federal appellate · 6 district · 60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 232 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney (1967), 2 Cal. 3d 118 - People v. Marsden (1970)

111 federal appellate · 6 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 20 states

1150196219701980199020002010decided

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 Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Irvin v. Dowd · Brown v. Allen · Michel v. State of Louisiana Poret · Oyler v. Boles

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

  1. “Counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'a total failure to present the cause of the accused in any fundamental respect'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"`The test to be applied in determining the legal adequacy of the allegations of appellant's petition is readily stated: "The requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment is for a fair trial"; the due process clause "prohibits the conviction and incarceration of one whose trial is offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right." Compliance with this standard required that appellant, charged with a capital offense, be represented at trial by counsel. "`But the constitutional requirement of representation at trial is one of substance, not of form. It could not be satisfied by a pro forma or token appearance. Appellant was entitled to effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case.' ..." 229 So.2d at 56 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.