Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 205 U.S. 309 - Johnson v. Browne

Johnson v. Browne’s Empirical Analysis

205 U.S. 309 · 1907

Citation profile

193
cited by 193 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

100 federal appellate · 6 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 193 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2022 · most notably Medellin v. Texas (2008), United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992)

100 federal appellate · 6 district · 20 state decisions

4501907191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 United States v. Rauscher · City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co · Kirby v. United States · Missouri Ry Co v. Haber · William Tucker v. Leo Alexandroff

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

  1. “, “While the escape of criminals is, of course, to be very greatly deprecated, it is still most important that a treaty of this nature between sovereignties should be construed in accordance with the highest good faith, and that it should not be sought, by doubtful construction of some of its provisions, to obtain the extradition of a person for one offense and then punish him for another and different offense.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]hether the crime came within the provision of the treaty was a matter for the decision of the Dominion authorities, and such decision was final by the express terms of the treaty itself.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] later treaty will not be regarded as repealing an earlier statute by implication, unless the two are absolutely incompatible and the statute cannot be enforced without antagonizing the treaty.”
    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.