199 F. Supp. 86 - Johnson v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2016
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Brown v. Allen · United States v. Hayman · Darr v. Burford · Frisbie v. Collins
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The mere fact that a specific and detailed disposition is not made by the Court in its written reasons of every contention urged by a petitioner before the Court cannot be construed to mean that such contentions were not considered by that Court. Indeed, on the contrary, it should be assumed that the Court did consider all arguments and issues presented, absent specific showing to the contrary.” Johnson v. Walker, 199 F.Supp. 86, 90 (E.D.La.1961).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * [this] question was thoroughly explored before the jury, and it was found, as a matter of fact, that petitioner had consented to the search and seizure now complained of.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Walker“* * * in order to feel satisfied that petitioner has been given the full benefit of a complete review of his case by this Court * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Walker
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.