Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
291 F.2d 150 · 1961
Citation profile
106 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2006 · most notably State v. Long (1978), Dixon v. United States (2006)
106 federal appellate · 7 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 471 (Counterfeit Deterrence Act of 1992)
Relies on United States v. Johnson · United States v. Johnson · The Kansas City Star Company v. United States of America, Emil A. Sees v. United States · Wagner 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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This Court has ‘repeatedly held that the plain error rule should be applied with caution and should be invoked only to avoid a miscarriage of justice.’ Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 291 F.2d 150 , 156. Similar pronouncements of this Court as to the noticing of plain error may be found in: Page v. United States, 8 Cir., 282 F.2d 807 , 810; Bell v. United States, 8 Cir., 251 F.2d 490 , 494; Kreinbring v. United States, 8 Cir., 216 F.2d 671 , 674; Mitchell v. United States, 8 Cir., 208 F.2d 854 , 858.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The granting of motions for continuance before or during trial is discretionary with the trial court. In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, the action of the trial court will be sustained. Bunn v. United States, 8th Cir., 260 F.2d 313 , 316; Kansas City Star Co. v. United States, 8th Cir., 240 F.2d 643 , 651; McKenna v. United States, 8th Cir., 232 F.2d 431 , 435. In the Bunn case we stated, “This Court will not retroactively attempt to substitute its discretion for that of a trial judge as to matters which have to do with the orderly conduct of the trial before him in which concern not only the defendant and the government, but witnesses, jurors, and the court itself.” [250 [260] F.2d 316.] as cited in Johnson v. United States, 291 F.2d 150 (8th Cir. 1961).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Courts look upon recantation with suspicion. The trial court, which has had the witness before it, is in a much better position to determine where the truth lies than an appellate court. An appellate court should not interfere with the trial court’s findings which have evidentiary support. Motions for new trial based upon factual considerations should not be tried de novo upon appeal. United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106 , 111-113, 66 S.Ct. 464 , 90 L.Ed. 562 ; Connelly v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 333 ; United States v. Smith, 7 Cir., 253 F.2d 95 , 98; Newman v. United States, 5 Cir., 238 F.2d 861 , 863; Jencks v. United States, 5 Cir., 226 F.2d 553 , 555.””
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.