Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 424 F.2d 1166 - Brown v. Craven

Brown v. Craven’s Empirical Analysis

424 F.2d 1166 · 1970

Citation profile

204
cited by 204 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

96 federal appellate · 3 district · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 204 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Faretta v. California (1975), 52 Cal. 3d 815 - People v. Daniels (1991)

96 federal appellate · 3 district · 56 state decisions — followed in 23 states

490197019801990200020102020decided

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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Jackson v. Denno · Sims v. State of Georgia · Entsminger v. Iowa

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

  1. “to compel one charged with grievous crime to undergo a trial with the assistance of an attorney with whom he has become embroiled in irreconcilable conflict is to deprive him of the effective assistance of any counsel whatsoever.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “was forced into a trial with the assistance of a particular lawyer with whom he was dissatisfied, with whom he would not cooperate, and with whom he would not, in any manner whatsoever, communicate.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “existed which would warrant an exception; thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint or substitute a nonmember of the indigent defense panel. 5 Taliaferro also claims that he was entitled to Katz's representation because of a pre-indictment attorney-client relationship with Katz. However, the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee that an accused have a”
    2 later decisions 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.