Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 F.3d 451 - Wilmer v. Johnson

Wilmer v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

30 F.3d 451 · 1994

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2025

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

1201994200020102020decided

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. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Teague v. Lane · Burks v. United States · Benton v. Maryland · Green v. United States · United States v. DiFrancesco

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

  1. “[A] State can waive the Teague bar by not raising it. . . . Although we undoubtedly have the discretion to reach the State's Teague argument, we will not do so in these circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]n Bullington , a capital case, the Court carved out an exception to the general rule that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply in the sentencing context.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The lower standard of proof signifies a more lax procedure which in turn signifies that a hearing is not, in the Bullington calculus, trial-like.”
    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.