Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 F.3d 1129 - United States v. Johnson

United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

187 F.3d 1129 · 1999

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
2
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Franco-Lopez (2002), United States of America v. Ray Lawrence Mondragon (2000)

26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

4101999200020102020decided

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 Santobello v. New York · United States v. Benchimol · United States v. Shirley · United States v. Roberts · United States v. Brown

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

  1. “[W]e are required to . . . remand for re-sentencing before a different judge . . . We emphasize that this is in no sense to question the fairness of the sentencing judge . . . [w]e remand to a different judge for re-sentencing because the case law requires us to do so. We intend no criticism of the district judge by this action, and none should be inferred.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “solely for the purpose of influencing the district court to sentence [the defendant] more harshly”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Ninth Circuit has been inconsistent in its standards for reviewing a claim that the government has breached a plea agreement. Compare United States v. Schuman, 127 F.3d 815 , 817 (9th Cir. 1997) (de novo standard), with United States v. Salemo, 81 F.3d 1453 , 1460 (9th Cir. 1996) (clearly erroneous standard).”
    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.