Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 337 F.3d 1155 - Brown v. Poole

Brown v. Poole’s Empirical Analysis

337 F.3d 1155 · 2003

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Lambert v. Blodgett (2004), United States v. Sanchez (2009)

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

420200320102020decided

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 Santobello v. New York · Teague v. Lane · Fay v. Noia · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr

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

  1. “Brown has met the terms of the agreed-upon bargain, and paid in a coin that the state cannot refund. Rescission of the contract is impossible under such circumstances; Brown cannot conceivably be returned to the status quo ante. That leaves specific performance as the only viable remedy.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[The defendant's] due process rights conferred by the federal constitution allow [him] to enforce the terms of the plea agreement.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]hat the breach of agreement was inadvertent does not lessen its impact.”
    2 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.