Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 N.W.2d 617 - State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
3
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably State v. O'CONNELL (1979), Smith v. State (1977)

45 state decisions

22019741980199020002010decided

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 In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Grismore v. Consolidated Products Co. · Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc. · State v. Fetters · 26 Ill. 2d 308 - The PEOPLE 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[pjroof of the other offenses must be clear”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It should be recognized, however, that this is not a discretion to depart from the principle that evidence of other crimes, having no substantial relevancy except to ground the inference that accused is a bad man and hence probably committed this crime, must be excluded. The leeway of discretion lies rather in the opposite direction, empowering the judge to exclude the other-crimes evidence, even when it has substantial independent relevancy, if in his judgment its probative value for this purpose is outweighed by the danger that it will stir such passion in the jury as to sweep them beyond a rational consideration of guilt or innocence of the crime on trial. Discretion implies not only leeway but responsibility. A decision clearly wrong on this question of balancing probative value against danger of prejudice will be corrected on appeal as an abuse of discretion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake or accident, (4) a common scheme or system of criminal activity embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related that proof of one tends to prove the other, (5) identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.