Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 617 SW2D 196 - Brown v. State

Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
February 2006
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2006 · most notably Texas v. Brown (1983), Morgan v. State (1985)

24 state decisions

220198119902000decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Payton v. New York · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Cortez

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

  1. “"The State urges that it is a well known fact that heroin is kept in balloons. The officer's testimony, however, does not demonstrate that he was cognizant of this `well known' fact or immediately aware that heroin was in the balloon at the time of the seizure. The seizure must be based on what was known by the officer at the time he acted, yet this record contains not a scintilla of evidence that the officer knew what the State now alleges in its brief on appeal is a `well known' fact. The burden was on the State to show facts authorizing the seizure here challenged. Had the State produced any evidence on this issue, there might have been shown a basis for its claim on appeal, but this was not done." (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““... the seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity.””
    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.