State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Coble v. State (2010), State v. Taylor (2009)
78 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Batson v. Kentucky · Ring v. Arizona · Wainwright v. Witt
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'inadvertence or negligence.’ ’’ State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561, 582 (Mo. banc 2009) (quoting State v. Mead, 105 S.W.3d 552, 556 (Mo.App. W.D.2003)).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; and (2) Whether the evidence supports the jury’s or judge’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in subsection 2 of section 565.032 and any other circumstance found; (3) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime, the strength of the evidence and the defendant.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Deck · State v. Tisius“So long as a State’s method of allocating the burdens of proof does not lessen the State’s burden to prove every element of the offense charged, or in this case to prove the existence of aggravating circumstances, a defendant’s constitutional rights are not violated by placing on him the burden of proving mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tisius · State v. McFadden
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.