Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 Ark. 260 - Johnson v. State

Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2014 · most notably Horton v. California (1990), Wofford v. State (1997)

30 state decisions

1801987199020002010decided

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 Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Santana · Kelley v. State · State v. Cote · Munnerlyn 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The real concern expressed in Coolidge was with “a planned warrantless seizure.” The inadvertence requirement has generally been interpreted to mean that “immediately prior to the discovery, the police lacked sufficient information to establish probable cause to obtain a warrant to search for the object.” Inadvertence does not “encompass total surprise” or mean “unexpected.” It is absurd to believe that the officers planned in advance to see Johnson walking on this property near the highway carrying an armful of marijuana, use that as a pretext to follow him onto the premises to make the arrest, and at that time seize the marijuana they expected to find there. The fact that the officers had an informant’s tip that marijuana could be growing there does not make the sighting of the marijuana “advertent” in these circumstances. [Citations omitted.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.