Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 270 F.2d 721 - Johnson v. United States

Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

270 F.2d 721 · 1959

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
4
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably United States v. Barnes (1979), Arellanes v. United States (1962)

46 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

2601959196019701980199020002010decided

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 26 U.S.C. § 7607

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Draper v. United States · Weeks v. United States

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

  1. “One of the offenses charged in a number of the counts in the information on trial is for the unlawful possession of migratory birds. Now, the word “possession” includes actual possession, that is to say, the direct physical control over a thing at a given time or it may be constructive possession, that is to say, one who knowingly has the power at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing is then in constructive possession of it. Possession may be sole or joint, that is if one person alone has actual or constructive possession of a thing such possession is sole. If two or more persons share actual or constructive possession of a thing their possession is joint. As used in the counts of these informations, the words “unlawfully possess” means that the defendant on trial had either actual possession or constructive possession or joint possession. Proof of anyone of these types of possession is all that is necessary, therefore, if you find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused either alone or jointly with others, had actual or constructive possession of the migatory fowl described in any one count of the information, then you may find that such ducks were in the possession of the accused within the meaning of the word “possession” as used in the law and in these instructions.”
    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.