Johnson v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2005 · most notably Keeter v. Commonwealth (1981), Heaton v. Commonwealth (1974)
41 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.
Relationships
Relies on Ker v. State of California · Miller v. United States · People v. Maddox · Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Jones · Accarino 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reasons for the requirement of notice of purpose and authority have been said to be that the law abhors unnecessary breaking or destruction of any house, because the dweller in the house would not know the purpose of the person breaking in, unless he were notified, and would have a right to resist seeming aggression on his private property.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We further believe that the common law should be evaluated in the light of modern technology and the nature of illegal drug traffic in which small, easily disposable quantities of drugs can yield large profits. It would seem that the perfection of small firearms and the development of indoor plumbing through which evidence can quickly be destroyed have made [statutes requiring notice and entry before the use of force to enter] a dangerous anachronism. In many situations today, a rule requiring officers to forfeit the valuable element of surprise seems senseless and dangerous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““These exceptions have been made because of exigent circumstances and where the facts make it evident that the officers’ purpose is known, or where announcement might frustrate the arrest, increase the peril of the arresting officer or permit the destruction of evidence. .. .” 213 Va. at 104 , 189 S. E. 2d at 679-80 .”
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.