Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
January 1994
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Regents of the University of California v. Bakke · Ham v. South Carolina · Ristaino v. Ross · United Mine Workers, Local No. 1854 v. National Labor Relations Board · Moore v. Texas
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Factors that can be introduced in mitigation of punishment are those that have a relationship to the circumstances of the offense or to the defendant before or at the time of the offense. Factors which arise after the offense and independently of the defendant are properly excluded. Stiehl v. State, 585 S.W.2d 716, 718 (Tex. Crim.App.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1114 [ 101 S.Ct. 926 , 66 L.Ed.2d 843 ] (1981). We hold that evidence of the supervision and revocation procedures of probation was independent of appellant and his conduct and was therefore properly excluded." Brown v. State, 674 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1984). (Emphasis Supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State“evidence of the supervision and revocation procedures of probation was independent of appellant and his conduct and was therefore properly excluded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown 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.