Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 F.3d 151 - United States v. Johnson

United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

28 F.3d 151 · 1994

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2020

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

1001994200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 5038 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 860 (§ 419 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 991 · 28 U.S.C. § 994

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gregg v. Georgia · Gault · Mistretta 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As we said in [United States v. ] McDonald, “setting aside a conviction may allow a youth who has slipped to regain his footing by relieving him of the social and economic disabilities associated with a criminal record.... But if a juvenile offender turns into a recidivist, the case for conferring the benefit dissipates.... Society’s stronger interest is in punishing appropriately an unrepentant criminal.” 991 F.2d [866,] 872 [ (D.C.Cir.1993)]. Under the D.C. Code, therefore, a court may take into account the defendant’s juvenile record in determining his sentence for crimes he committed as an adult.... A defendant with a juvenile record may not have been “convicted,” but the defendant nevertheless “violated a provision of the criminal law,” Matter of W.A.F., 573 A.2d 1264, 1267 (D.C.1990). ---- When yesterday’s juvenile delinquent becomes today’s adult criminal the reasons behind society’s earlier forbearance disappear. The question before the sentencing court is what punishment to mete out to an adult criminal, not how to treat and rehabilitate a youthful offender.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] ‘sentencing court’s discretionary refusal to depart downward is not reviewable on appeal.’”
    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.