Brown v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
483 F.2d 116 · 1973
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1996 · most notably Farrow v. United States (1978), United States v. Jones (1990)
48 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Tucker · Carnley v. Cochran · Burgett v. Texas · Carafas v. J
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In short, a [habeas corpus] proceeding based on Tucker , which is itself a collateral proceeding, should not have as its essential predicate a collateral attack on still another sentence, especially if the sentence was imposed by a state court of another jurisdiction, which has not been invalidated in proceedings originally begun in that latter jurisdiction. A contrary conclusion would mean that a petitioner might use a collateral proceeding in one jurisdiction to make ‘a collateral second-level’ attack on judgments of convictions rendered in state courts, in which there had been not the slightest attempt at exhaustion of state remedies.” See also, Brown v. United States, 483 F.2d 116, 118 (4th Cir. 1973); Ryan v. United States, 485 F.2d 295, 296 (8th Cir. 1973).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to remand the proceeding to the District Court in order that it might review the record to determine whether, assuming the invalidity of the three state convictions in question, its sentence would be the same.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the state conviction is in another state from that in which the 2255 proceedings are had, the State procuring the challenged conviction would not be a party to the proceeding, would not have been heard on the invalidation of its conviction, and would have been denied the right to a prior exhaustion of state reme-dies_ [These reasons] appear sufficient warrant for requiring that a prisoner who bases his attack against one sentence on a collateral attack on another state sentence, particularly, when imposed in a foreign jurisdiction, to attack first the underlying sentence in the court imposing that sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.