Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 LA 625 - State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
4
states following
December 1987
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 1987 · most notably Boyle v. State (1934), 410 So. 2d 1019 - State v. Willie (1982)

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

1401922193019401950196019701980decided

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

Relies on State v. Tyler · State v. Jones · State v. Blackman · State v. Mack

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

  1. “"It is commonly said that no inference is allowable where the person in question is equally available to both parties; particularly where he is actually in court; though there seems to be no disposition to accept such a limitation absolutely or to enforce it strictly. Yet the more logical view is that the failure to produce is open to an inference against both parties, the particular strength of the inference against either depending on the circumstances. To prohibit the inference entirely is to reduce to an arbitrary rule of uniformity that which really depends on the varying significance of facts which cannot be so measured."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In the recent case of State v. Tyler, 150 La. 131 , 90 So. 538 , the motion for a new trial was founded upon the averment that there was no evidence to support a verdict of embezzlement and that the verdict was therefore not responsive to the evidence. A transcript of all of the testimony heard on the 'trial was annexed to the bill. It was held ‘not the province of this court to judge of the sufficiency of the evidence, if there was any evidence at all, of a fact essential to a conviction.’ ” (Italics ours.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"The law which authorizes the jury to qualify its verdict, is a farce, and means nothing to you as jurors; you should pay no attention to such a law; you should hang the accused, and, if you do not, he will be paroled in a few years and let loose upon society. If you will send him to the gallows, he will be beyond the reach of the board of parole."”
    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.