Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
246 F.3d 655 · 2001
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 32 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Pacheco-Zepeda v. United States (2001), Pacheco-Zepeda v. United States (2001)
27 federal appellate · 32 district · 1 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 Invex Holdings, N.V. v. Equitable Life Insurance · Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee Police Department · DeGennaro v. Furr · Kapral v. United States · United States v. Seago
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of— (1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“every defendant seeking to file an untimely § 2255 motion [to] do an end-run around the AEDPA limitation period by filing a timely, but ultimately meritless, Rule 33 motion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“because related, if not identical, claims may be pursued under both Rule 33 and § 2255, .these two provisions overlap to some extent .... Nevertheless, nothing prevents a petitioner, upon discovering new evidence, from filing motions under both Rule 33 and § 2255. The district court may then consolidate the motions, or stay the timely filed § 2255 motion pending the outcome of the Rule 33 motion.”
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.