State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
97 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2119 · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Teague v. Lane · Branzburg v. Hayes
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]eeause of the uncertainty expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court respecting the continuing vitality of McMillan , and the broad understanding of ‘punishment’ recognized by this Court, we will construe subsection (e) of NERA to require that the ‘violent crime’ condition must be submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. To do otherwise would be to subject NERA to constitutional challenge. [Id. at 543-44, 766 A.2d 1126 (footnote omitted).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a NERA sentence does not impose an increased maximum prison sentence beyond that otherwise available under the Criminal Code. However, `we have always recognized that real time is the realistic and practical measure of the punishment imposed.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“armed with or threatened the immediate use of a deadly weapon, to wit, a handgun in the course of committing the theft.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.