Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2024
13 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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Faretta v. California · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Cronic
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[an appellant] alleging prejudice must show “that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is rehable.” Strickland, 466 U.S., at 687 , 104 S.Ct., at 2064 ; see also Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 374 , 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2582 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (“The essence of an ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel’s unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect”); Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. [157], at 175, 106 S.Ct. [988], at 998[, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986)]. Thus, an analysis focusing solely on mere outcome determination, without attention to whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable, is defective. To set aside a conviction or sentence solely because the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s error may grant the defendant a windfall to which the law does not entitle him. See [United States v.] Cronic, 466 U.S. [648], at 658, 104 S.Ct. [2039], at 2046[, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Revilla v. State“While it is true that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution demands that state law yield to federal law, it is also true that neither the federal Supremacy Clause nor any other principle of law requires that this state court's interpretation of federal law give way to a lower federal court's interpretation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. MARTINEZ v. STATE“There is a presumption of regularity in the trial court proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. STEVENS 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.