United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
14 F.3d 766 · 1994
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Carol Novak v. Sally Frame, Novak v. Kasaks (2000)
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 879
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Francis v. Franklin · Lorillard v. Pons · Mathews 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever knowingly and willfully déposits for conveyance in the mail ... any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States . .., or knowingly and, willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President ..., shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both,” 18 U.S.C. § 871 (a). Section 879(a) contains similar language, imposing penalties and imprisonment on "[wjhoever knowing-Iy and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm” on, inter alia, a former President or a member of his immediate family. 18 U.S.C. § 879 (a). 3 .Indeed, we arrived at our conclusion in Johnson notwithstanding a "problematic” portion of the legislative history indicating that Section 879 requires “some evidence that the maker intended the statement to be a threat.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The meaning of terms on the statute books ought to be determined, not on the basis of which meaning can be shown to have been understood by a larger handful of the Members of Congress; but rather on the basis of which meaning is (1) most in accord with context and ordinary usage, and thus most likely to have been understood by the whole Congress which voted on the words of the statute ... and (2) most compatible with the surrounding body of law into which the provision must be integrated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“problematic” portion of the legislative history indicating that Section 879 requires “some evidence that the maker intended the statement to be a threat.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.