Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 S.W.3d 508 - Brown v. State

Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2021

9 state decisions

50200220102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 299th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Montgomery v. State · McFarland v. State · Salazar v. State · Plante v. State · Rubio 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Where the material issue addressed is the defendant’s intent to commit the offense charged, the relevancy of the extraneous offense derives purely from: the point of view of the doctrine of chances — the instinctive recognition of that logical process which eliminates the element of innocent intent by multiplying instances of the same result until it is perceived that this element [i.e. innocent intent] cannot explain them all.... [[Image here]] ... It is not ... necessary to look for a general scheme or to discover a united system in all the acts; the attempt is merely to discover the intent accompanying the act in question; and the prior doing of other acts, whether clearly a part of a scheme or not, is useful as reducing the possibility that the act in question was done with innocent intent. The argument is based purely on the doctrine of chances, and it is the mere repetition of instances, and not their system or scheme, that satisfies our logical demand. Yet, in order to satisfy this demand, it is at least necessary that prior acts should be similar.”
    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.