Commonwealth v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Wright (1985), State v. Davis (1994)
90 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 18 U.S.C. § 545 · 19 U.S.C. § 1497 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · One Lot Emerald Cut Stones One Ring v. United States
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he problem presented in this law suit is merely whether the Commonwealth, after having elected to defer to the judgment of the jury, should be given the additional opportunity to re[-]litigate the same issue applying a preponderance of the evidence test. We do not believe that there is any justification for such a disparity. As has been noted[,] the probationer is bound in a subsequent revocation hearing by an earlier verdict of guilt. Moreover, in electing to defer the judgment in the first instance[,] the Commonwealth has impinged upon the probationer's right to a 'speedy' revocation hearing and disposition. Under all of these circumstances, it is clear that such an option would not only be unseemly but fundamentally unfair.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n both proceedings the sanction of loss of liberty is involved ... [and w]here, as here, the sole basis offered for the violation of probation is the commission of a subsequent offense, the threshold issue in both proceedings is exactly the same, i.e., did the probationer commit the offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is obvious that the second bite of the apple which the Commonwealth seeks here is quite incompatible with our statement of purpose in sanctioning such a procedure. Moreover, [the language of Burrell ] reflects the clear assumption that where there has been such a deferral the Commonwealth will be bound by the finding of the criminal trial.”
3 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.