Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 169 F.3d 1239 - Johnson v. Gibson

Johnson v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis

169 F.3d 1239 · 1999

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
4
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Victor Wayne Hooks v. Ron Ward (1999), Dion Smallwood v. Gary Gibson Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma - (1999)

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

460199920002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · Kyles v. Whitley · Lindh v. Murphy · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo

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

  1. “[s]ubstitution-of-counsel standards are imposed by the Sixth Amendment and require that to warrant a substitution of counsel, the defendant must show good cause, such as a conflict of interest, a complete breakdovm of communication or an irreconcilable conflict which leads to an apparently unjust verdict. The district court is under a duty to make formal inquiry into the defendant’s reasons for dissatisfaction with present counsel when substitution of counsel is requested.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]o warrant a substitution of counsel, the defendant must show good cause, such as a conflict of interest, a complete breakdown of communication or an irreconcilable conflict which leads to an apparently unjust verdict.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A charging instrument may violate the Sixth Amendment by failing to provide a defendant with adequate notice of the nature and cause of the accusations filed against him.”
    2 later decisions 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.