Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 333 U.S. 18 - United States v. Brown

United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

333 U.S. 18 · 1948

Citation profile

748
cited by 748 later decisions
44
cited 44 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

290 federal appellate · 27 district · 190 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 748 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably United States v. Turkette (1981), Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co. (2002)

290 federal appellate · 27 district · 190 state decisions — followed in 25 states

1940194819501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedBrown v. United States (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Gooch v. United States · United States v. Raynor · United States v. Giles · United States v. Corbett

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

  1. “The canon in favor of strict construction (of criminal statutes) is not an inexorable command to override common sense and evident statutory purpose. . . . Nor does it demand that a statute be given the 'narrowest meaning'; it is satisfied if the words are given their fair meaning in accord with the manifest intent of the lawmakers.”
    38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No rule of construction necessitates our acceptance of an interpretation resulting in patently absurd consequences.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Pp. 138-143. (e) Congress was concerned that the drug laws not impede legitimate research and that physicians be allowed reasonable discretion in treating patients, but it did not intend to exempt from serious criminal penalties those acts by physicians that go beyond the limits of approved professional practice. Pp. 143-145. (f) Where the statutory purpose is clear, the canon of strict construction of criminal statutes favoring the accused will be satisfied if the words of the statute are”
    1 later decision 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.