Johnston v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
254 F.2d 239 · 1958
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Garza v. Idaho (2019), Holt v. United States (1962)
37 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Lovell Manufacturing Co. v. Etten · Diggs v. Welch · Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Lines · Cannon v. Ellis · Delsea Corp. v. Flickstein
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A motion to vacate judgment under this statute must challenge the jurisdiction of the court, or must charge that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or-is otherwise subject to collateral attack. Johnston v. United States, [ 254 F.2d 239 ] supra.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * gy gugh a plea> the accused admits the allegations of the facts charged in the information or indictment, and if the plea of guilty is properly entered, the accused cannot later be heard to contend that there was no evidence offered. * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is clear from the motion filed by appellant and the files and records of the case that the court was vested with jurisdiction; the sentence imposed was within the limits authorized by law; there was no denial of appellant’s constitutional rights, and no infirmities appear therefrom which would render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack under Title 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2255 ; that inasmuch as the motion and the files and records conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief, the district court properly denied a hearing on the 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.