State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably State v. Mincey (1981), State v. Axley (1982)
54 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Harrison v. United States · White v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Killian v. United States
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After the jurors have retired to consider them verdict, if they desire to have any testimony repeated, or if they or any party request additional instructions, the court may recall them to the courtroom and order the testimony read or give appropriate additional instructions. The court may also order other testimony read or give other instructions, so as not to give undue prominence to the particular testimony or instructions requested. Such testimony may be read or instructions given only after notice to the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While a prosecuting attorney has discretion in deciding whether to bring a crimi nal action ..., he has no authority to dismiss a pending criminal prosecution. He can only recommend dismissal to the court but actual dismissal is solely within the court’s discretion. Rule 289, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; see People v. Parks, 230 Cal.App.2d 805 , 41 Cal.Rptr. 329 (1964).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. West““The prosecuting attorney did not have the sole authority to agree to a dismissal. His role was limited to recommending to the court that the case be dismissed. Any agreement exceeding this limited scope of authority would be void and unenforceable.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Morse
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.