Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 F.3d 104 - Johnson v. Rosemeyer

Johnson v. Rosemeyer’s Empirical Analysis

117 F.3d 104 · 1997

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
February 2019
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 9 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably McCandless v. Vaughn (1999), Lambert v. Blackwell (2004)

28 federal appellate · 9 district ·

340199720002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Estelle v. McGuire · Tennessee v. Garner · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Engle v. Isaac

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

  1. “errors of state law cannot be repackaged as federal errors simply by citing the Due Process Clause”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In habeas cases [], district courts act after the state court has decided the state law and applied it to the same record that is before the habeas court. To permit federal courts to speculate about the direction state law may take in the face of an authoritative final decision of a state court in the same case would directly interfere with the state’s ability to decide the meaning of its own law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'[I]t is well established that a state court's misapplication of its own law does not generally raise a constitutional claim. The federal courts have no supervisory authority over state judicial proceedings and may intervene only to correct wrongs of constitutional dimension.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.