Johnson v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 132 state decisions

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

1. ““But we think more should be said. By the holding in Vernon v. State, supra, that the remedy by petition for habeas corpus was not available, it was not intended to indicate there was no remedy for one who claims that his incarceration is due to failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to every concept of justice, even after a sentence has been duly affirmed by the highest court of the state. We recognize in this State, as does the Supreme Court of Florida (Hysler v. State, 146 Fla. 593 , 1 So.2d 628 ), that the common law writ of error coram nobis is available in such instances and is the appropriate remedy to be followed. See 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1606. The rule in that State, which we think is just and proper, and is here adopted, calls for a petition to this Court, when the judgment of conviction has been here affirmed, for leave to petition the circuit court where the conviction was obtained for a writ of error coram nobis to review such judgment. Such application should make an adequate showing of the substantiality of the petitioner’s claim to the satisfaction of this Court.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 32 Ala. App. 500 - Brown v. State · Brown v. State

2. ““ * * * This was forcibly demonstrated in the opinion in Vernon v. State, supra [ 240 Ala. 577 , 200 So. 560 ], that one may waive and does waive his constitutional rights if he fails to assert or claim them at the appropriate time and place, and according to the established course of procedure. That petitioner had the perfect right to present this question upon his trial is amply demonstrated by reference to our decisions beginning as far back as 1882 in Green v. State, 73 Ala. 26 , and coming down to our latest authorities, Millhouse v. State, 232 Ala. 567 , 168 So. 665 ; Vaughn v. State, 235 Ala. 80 , 177 So. 553 ; Vernon v. State, 239 Ala. 593 , 196 So. 96 ; Vernon v. State, supra; Powell v. State, 224 Ala. 540 , 141 So. 201 ; and the principle that one may waive and does waive his constitutional rights if he fails to assert or claim them at the appropriate time and place, and according to the established course of procedure is equally recognized by the decisions of the Federal courts. This very question concerning the jury venire was presented and so determined in In re Wood, 140 U.S. 278 , 11 S.Ct. 738 , 35 L.Ed 505, and Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U.S. 272 , 15 S.Ct. 389 , 39 L.Ed. 422 , and the more recent case of Carruthers v. Reed, 8 Cir., 102 F.2d 933 (petition for certiorari denied by the United States Supreme Court in Carruthers v. Reed, 307 U.S. 643 , 59 S.Ct. 1047 , 83 L.Ed 1523). See, also, the recent case of Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269 , 63 S.Ct. 236 . 87”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 410 So. 2d 130 - Ex Parte Ellison · Ex Parte Seals

3. ““Where the court proceedings and conviction under which the prisoner is held are of a court of competent jurisdiction and are regular on their face, it is not permissible to impeach the court’s jurisdiction by parol testimony. It is only when invalidity appears on the face of the proceedings that it may be impeached on habeas corpus. Vernon v. State, 240 Ala. 577 , 200 So. 560 ; Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 ; Davis v. State, 153 Ala. 73 , 45 So. 154 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Parham v. State