Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2009
18 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 16 Cal. 3d 52 - In Re Coughlin · State v. Roberson · Hoffa v. State · Strebin v. Lavengood · Dean 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Brown did not verify the petition for post-conviction relief. It was signed by counsel on his behalf. So the State points to PCR 1, § 3 which provides that, "`The petition shall be made under oath and the petitioner shall verify the correctness of the petition, the authenticity of all documents and exhibits attached to the petition, and the fact that he has included every ground for relief under Sec. 1 known to the petitioner. ' "(Emphasis supplied). For the first time on appeal the State urges that the rule requires personal verification by the petitioner; therefore, the argument follows that, because Brown's petition was signed and verified not by Brown, but by his attorney, the petition should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. "We are aware of language in Thompson v. State , (1979) 270 Ind. 677 , *Page 153 389 N.E.2d 274 , suggesting that verification is necessary before a trial court gains jurisdiction over a post-conviction relief petition. We are also cognizant of the decisions in Shelor v. State , (1979) 270 Ind. 454 , 386 N.E.2d 690 , and Owen v. State , (1975) 167 Ind.App. 258 , 338 N.E.2d 715 , trans. denied , which indicate a trial court should not reach the merits of an unverified post-conviction petition. But those cases have never squarely addressed the question of whether verification is necessary to confer subject-matter jurisdiction, which can never be waived or consented to, or jurisdiction of the particular case, which must be raised at the earliest p”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. French v. State · Smith v. State“that the effect of an appellate court's reversal of a judgment is to vacate and nullify the trial court's judgment, restoring the parties to the position they held before judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. St. John v. State“[Rlev-oeation of probation may be based upon evidence of the commission of an offense, even if the probationer has been acquitted of the crime after trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cooper v. State
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.