Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2000 · most notably RLR v. State (1971), Erickson v. State (1973)
2 federal appellate · 27 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 Diaz v. United States · Lewis v. United States · Johnson v. United States · People v. West · Greenberg v. United States
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. the term [search] implies some exploratory investigation or an invasion and quest, a looking for or seeking out. The quest may be secret, intrusive or accomplished by force, and it has been held that a search implies some sort of force, either actual or constructive, much or little. A search implies a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed and that the object searched for has been hidden or intentionally put out of the way.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“The right of a defendant to be present at all stages of the proceedings existed at common law. The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 11, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska confers on the accused the right ‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ This constitutional right has been implemented by Alaska Criminal Rule 38 (essentially similar to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43) . ... (footnote omitted)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The defendant had not waived his right to be present; in fact he did not know that the hearing was being held. It is true that his attorney was present. But the proceeding that occurred appears to us to have been of such a nature that defendant himself should have been present in person * * *. “We believe that under the circumstances * * * the appellant’s presence was required * * * and that his right to be present was as vital to his defense as his specific constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against hiTYi ^ Id 8,t 789”
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.