Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 372 U.S. 477 - Lane v. Brown

Lane v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

967
cited by 967 later decisions
90
cited 90 times by the Supreme Court
35
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

266 federal appellate · 63 district · 390 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 967 later decisions (90 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Anders v. California (1967), North Carolina v. Pearce (1969)

266 federal appellate · 63 district · 390 state decisions — followed in 35 states

5050196319701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedUnited States of America Ex Rel. George Robert Brown v. Ward Lane, as Warden of the Indiana State Prison (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Betts v. Brady · Smith v. Bennett · Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms & Paroles

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

  1. “[O]nce the state chooses to establish appellate reviews in criminal cases, it may not foreclose indigents from access to any phase of that procedure because of their poverty.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * In 1945 the Indiana Legislature enacted the so-called Public Defender Act, a law to deal with the problem of providing legal assistance to indigent prisoners in postconviction proceedings. It is the operation of the provisions of this law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Indiana, which we find constitutionally deficient in the present case. “The 1945 legislation created the office of Public Defender, to be appointed by the State Supreme Court, and, as later amended, authorized him to employ ‘such deputies, stenographers or other clerical help as may be required to discharge his duties * * *.’ The provisions of the law which are at the root of the problem in the case before us are those which define the Public Defender’s basic duties and which authorize him to order hearing transcripts, or their equivalent, at public expense: “ ‘It shall be the duty of the public defender to represent any person in any penal institution of this state who is without sufficient property or funds to employ his own counsel, in any matter in which such person may assert he is unlawfully or illegally imprisoned, after his time for appeal shall have expired.’ “ ‘The public defender may order on behalf of any prisoner he represents a transcript of any court proceeding, including evidence presented, had against any prisoner, and depositions, if necessary, at the expense of the state, but the public defender shall have authority to stipulate facts contained in the record of any court, or ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Review by certiorari. — Rulings on petitions to file belated appeals, rulings on petitions to file belated motions for a new trial and rulings on belated motions for new trial (when because of the expiration of time it is impossible to incorporate the alleged errors in a regular appeal in the original criminal case), may be reviewed only on petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of this state. ****** It shall be the duty of the public defender of the state of Indiana to represent indigent persons who are inmates of penal institutions of the state of Indiana after their time for regular or timely appeal has expired, if requested so to do, in the filing of petitions for delayed appeals, petitions for belated motions for a new trial, and petitions for writs of certiorari if he, after diligent inquiry, finds any grounds upon which to sustain such proceedings. In the event of the failure or refusal of the public defender to represent any petitioner in such cases (as provided in Rule 2-40), upon petition filed in the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court setting up such facts that the public defender has failed or refused to represent them, a citation shall be issued to the public defender by this court to show cause why he does not represent the petitioner, and he shall file his response and report with the clerk of this court, which shall become a part of the record in this cause. Upon due consideration of said response and report, the court shall determine whether”
    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.