Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
483 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 484 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 42 So. 3d 503 - Rowland v. State (2010), 943 So. 2d 20 - Hannah v. State (2006)
483 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 Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Gavieres v. United States · Heath v. Alabama · 691 So. 2d 948 - Herring 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 484 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of review is de novo.”
83 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Dual Sovereignty doctrine recognizes that more than one offense results where a single criminal act violates the laws of more than one State or a State and the 'Federal Government. When such is the case, the defendant is not subjected to double jeopardy in successive prosecutions by the separate sovereigns for the same criminal act.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense." Id. at 109 [ White v. State, 702 So.2d 107 ] (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969)). The test for determining whether a defendant has been subjected to double jeopardy is the "same elements" test as set out in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), ... [A]n inquiry into whether each offense charged requires proof of an element not contained in the other. Where different elements are required by each offense "`an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.'" Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ramage v. State · King 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.