Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 F.2d 705 - Price v. Johnston

Price v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis

161 F.2d 705 · 1947

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
June 1964
most recently cited

9 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1964

9 federal appellate ·

50194719501960decided

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. § 461

Relies on Mooney v. Holohan · Walker v. Johnston · Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Waley v. Johnston · Salinger v. Loisel

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

  1. “The records in these several proceedings disclose that throughout his trial appellant was represented by counsel of his own choosing. And since he was himself present at all times he could hardly have been unaware of the described incident or of its implications, nor does he make any such claim. On the face of his showing it is apparent he knew as much about the misconduct at the time it is said to have occurred as he knows now. Yet no reason or excuse is attempted to be advanced for his failure to set it up in one or the other of his prior petitions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The gravamen of the misconduct charged is not the fact that the witness changed his testimony but that the prosecuting attorney knowingly caused the witness to give the false testimony. All the accused and his attorney knew at the trial was that the single prosecuting witness changed his testimony. Obviously this in itself does not warrant a charge of fraud. That it was fraudulently done by persuasion of the prosecuting attorney could only have been learned after conviction and after the convicted man was in the penitentiary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “did take the one and only witness, Donner, that testified that there had been a crime committed, from the witness stand after he had testified that he could not see any guns or pistols during the robbery, to the district attorney’s office, and talked about the evidence and put the witness Donner back on the witness stand to testify that he did see the pistols, and described them, when he could not do so at first.”
    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.