Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2003
10 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 Lee v. State · 8 Md. App. 468 - Raimondi v. State · Veney v. State · Chappell Chemical & Fertilizer Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co. · Heslop v. State
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In all other cases of presentment or indictment, and in all suits or actions at law or issues from the Orphans’ Court pending in any of the courts of law in this State which have jurisdiction over the cause or case, in addition to the suggestion in writing of either of the parties to the cause or case that the party cannot have a fair and impartial trial in the court in which the cause or case may be pending, it shall be necessary for the party making the suggestion to make it satisfactorily appear to the court that the suggestion is true, or that there is reasonable ground for the same; and thereupon the court shall order and direct the record of the proceedings in the cause or case to be transmitted to some other court, having jurisdiction in the cause or case, for trial. The right of removal also shall exist on suggestion in a cause or case in which all the judges of the court may be disqualified under the provisions of this Constitution to sit. The court to which the record of proceedings in such suit or action, issue, presentment or indictment is transmitted, shall hear and determine that cause or case in the same manner as if it had been originally instituted in that Court. The General Assembly shall modify the existing law as may be necessary to regulate and give force to this provision.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pantazes v. State“The intent and purpose of the constitutional provision for the removal of causes was to avoid any prejudice which might affect a jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Redman v. State“[t]he object was to get rid of the influence of local prejudice in the community from which the jury to try the case was to come....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Redman v. State
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.