Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 534 So. 2d 329 - Hooks v. State (1987), 401 So. 2d 191 - Nobis v. State (1981)
75 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 Barker v. Wingo · Houchins v. KQED, Inc. · Dothard v. Rawlinson · Freeman v. Hall · Nichols v. State
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party who has brought out evidence on a certain subject has no valid complaint as to the trial court's action in allowing his opponent or adversary to introduce evidence on the same subject.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It has long been the rule in Alabama that a motion to exclude evidence made at the conclusion of the direct and cross-examination of a witness comes too late where no objection to such was made when it was initially elicited. Franklin v. State , 145 Ala. 669 , 39 So. 979 (1906); Howard v. State , 36 Ala. App. 191 , 54 So.2d 87 (1951); and cases cited therein. See also: Milligan v. State , 208 Ala. 223 , 94 So. 169 (1922); Lightner v. State , 195 Ala. 687 , 71 So. 469 (1916); Henderson v. State , 36 Ala. App. 143 , 53 So.2d 624 (1951); and cases cited therein. See generally: Hill v. State , 194 Ala. 11 , 69 So. 941 (1915); Sharp v. State , 193 Ala. 22 , 69 So. 122 (1915); Matson v. State , 27 Ala. App. 396 , 173 So. 612 (1937); and cases cited therein."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`"Although a defendant has a right to have questions answered truthfully by prospective jurors, the failure of a juror to make a proper response to a question regarding his qualifications does not automatically entitle a defendant to a new trial. The proper inquiry by this court in such cases is whether the appellant's rights were [probably] prejudiced by the juror's failure to respond properly."'"”
2 later decisions 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.