Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 856 SW2D 177 - Brown v. State

Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
6
states following
March 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2020

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

901993200020102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Matlock · Mincey v. Arizona · Ristaino v. Ross

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

  1. “[W]hen a crime is reported to the police by an individual who owns or controls the premises to which the police are summoned, and that individual either states or suggests that it was committed by a third person, he or she implicitly consents to a search of the premises reasonably related to the routine investigation of the offense and the identification of the perpetrator. As long as the individual is not a suspect in the case or does nothing to revoke his consent, the police may search the premises for these purposes, and evidence obtained thereby is admissible.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “a search of the premises reasonably related to the routine investigation of the offense”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “... when the subject of a search is not in custody and the State attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.