State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith (1983), 412 So. 2d 507 - State v. Humphrey (1982)
28 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 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur · 350 So. 2d 615 - State v. Sheppard · State v. Abercrombie · 354 So. 2d 1334 - State v. Sutfield · 388 So. 2d 713 - State v. Baylis
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. Criminal conspiracy is the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime; provided that an agreement or combination to commit a crime shall not amount to a criminal conspiracy unless, in addition to such agreement or combination, one or more of such parties does an act in furtherance of the object of the agreement or combination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“These facts, circumstances and inferences from them, if unexplained, would establish that this defendant was told to commit the crime and acted upon this communication by taking the gun from Williams, sticking it out the window of the car, pointing it at the officer, and unsuccessfully attempting to fire it, and then firing it. The recited facts which were found in the testimony of defendant and the testimony of Gauthier provide a prima facie case that defendant and Tommy Williams by their words and actions agreed and combined to shoot the officer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sant“(1) There must be clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed these prior burglaries; (2) The burglaries must be relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that the defendant committed the instant offense because he is a man of criminal character; (3) The prior burglaries tended to prove a material fact genuinely at issue; (4) The probative value of the prior burglaries outweighed their prejudicial effect.”
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.