Case Citator › Brown v. Allen

Brown v. Allen

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
344 U.S. 443
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
89 of 89
Citing cases (total)
89
Treatment dates
1963–1997
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Brown v. Allen has been overruled in part and superseded by statute in another respect; two confirmed treatments are listed below. Fay v. Noia overruled the procedural-default holding in Daniels v. Allen, the companion decision reported with Brown; the Supreme Court later identified that change in Coleman v. Thompson.
More on how this was screened

Federal habeas review under Brown's other holding was later altered by AEDPA. All 89 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

89 later cases cite Brown v. Allen; 89 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Brown v. Allen?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court overruled the procedural-default rule in Daniels v. Allen, the companion decision reported with Brown v. Allen, to the extent it conflicted with Fay's deliberate-bypass standard.

    Fay v. Noia · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    That was the approach taken in the Spencer and Daniels decisions, the most emphatic in their statement of deference to state rules of procedure. ... To the extent that any decisions of this Court may be read to suggest a standard of discretion in federal habeas corpus proceedings different from what we lay down today, such decisions shall be deemed overruled to the extent of any inconsistency.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Superseded by statute

  • The court held that AEDPA Section 2254(d) displaced Brown's de novo review and made the reasonableness of the state-court decision the focus of federal habeas review.

    Parker v. Angelone · E.D. Va. · filed

    With these provisions, the de novo review put into place by Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 458, 73 S.Ct. 397, 407-08, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953), is abrogated. The focus of federal court review is now the state court decision that previously addressed the claims rather than the petitioner’s freestanding claims themselves.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Brown v. Allen and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace