Brown v. Chastain’s Empirical Analysis
416 F.2d 1012 · 1969
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2008 · most notably Boddie v. Connecticut (1971), Henry v. First National Bank (1979)
46 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1348 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Gault · Fay v. Noia · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the constitutional questions stated in the . . . [complaint] actually arose in the cause, it was the province and duty of the state courts to decide them; and their decision, whether right or wrong, was an exercise of jurisdiction. If the decision was wrong, that did not make the judgment void, but merely left it open to reversal or modification in an appropriate and timely appellate proceeding. Unless and until so reversed or modified, it would be an effective and conclusive adjudication. [Citations omitted] Under the legislation of Congress, no court of the United States other than this court could entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify the judgment for errors of that character. ... To do so would be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts is strictly original.” Id., 263 U.S. at 415-16 , 44 S.Ct. at 150 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is plainly evident that what [plaintiff] seeks in this original action is a review by the federal courts of the proceedings of the [Florida] State Courts Federal courts are without authority to function as an appellate arm of the state courts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: * * * * “(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, X>rivilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Campise v. Hamilton
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.