Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 Md. 314 - Johnson v. State

Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

142
cited by 142 later decisions
5
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

4 district · 138 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 142 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably State v. Hicks (1979), Lewis v. State (1979)

4 district · 138 state decisions

69019781980199020002010decided

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. § 3501

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Gideon v. Wainwright · Brown v. Illinois · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory

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

  1. ““ ‘(1) [T]o carry out reasonable routine administrative procedures such as recording, fingerprinting and photographing; (2) to determine whether a charging document should be issued accusing the arrestee of a crime; (3) to verify the commission of the crimes specified in the charging document; (4) to obtain information likely to be a significant aid in averting harm to persons or loss to property of substantial value; (5) to obtain relevant nontestimonial information likely to be significant in discovering the identity or location of other persons who may be associated with the arrestee in the commission of the offense for which he was apprehended, or in preventing the loss, alteration or destruction of evidence relating to such crime.’ ””
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““A defendant who is detained pursuant to an arrest shall be taken before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay and in no event later than the earlier of (1) 24 hours after arrest or (2) the first session of court after the defendant’s arrest upon a warrant or, where an arrest has been made without a warrant, the first session of court after the charging document is filed. A charging document shall be filed promptly after arrest if not already filed.””
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Appellant’s second statement, admitting responsibility for the Rainbow Cleaners holdup and shooting, which was given almost immediately upon appellant’s return from the commissioner on January 31, should likewise have been suppressed. We cannot say, on the record before us, that the second confession was an independent act, occurring after time for deliberate reflection and therefore free from the taint of the preceding illegal detention.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.