Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Roberts v. State (2007), Smith v. State (2009)
67 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo))
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Glasser 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by the United States Supreme Court are the only types of errors that are subject to automatic reversal, 13 those errors specifically acknowledged as structural include: (1) the total deprivation of counsel at trial; (2) lack of an impartial trial judge; (3) the unlawful exclusion of members of the defendant's race from a grand jury; (4) the denial of the right to self-representation at trial; (5) the denial of the right to a public trial; and (6) an instruction that erroneously lowers the burden of proof for conviction below the”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morris v. State · Williams v. State“[i]n the ineffective assistance of counsel context, the narrowed prejudice inquiry is designed to ensure that the defendant would actually have availed himself of the proceeding in question, so that he really is in the same position as someone whose rights were denied by the trial court: “counsel's deficient performance must actually cause the forfeiture [of the proceeding in question]. If the defendant cannot demonstrate that, but for counsel's deficient performance, he would have [availed himself of that proceeding], counsel’s deficient performance has not deprived him of anything, and he is not entitled to relief.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There are just a few situations in which a conviction- can be overturned even though the trial court has done nothing wrong. Misconduct by the prosecutor, alone, can be grounds for such an occurrence if petjured testimony is knowingly used.,./’). . An instruction to disregard is the usual remedy for”
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.