Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 U.S. 458 - Johnson v. Zerbst

Johnson v. Zerbst’s Empirical Analysis

304 U.S. 458 · 1938

Citation profile

20,650
cited by 20,650 later decisions
508
cited 508 times by the Supreme Court
50
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

6,569 federal appellate · 905 district · 8,584 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20,650 later decisions (508 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Strickland v. Washington (1984), Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966)

6,569 federal appellate · 905 district · 8,584 state decisions — followed in 50 states

4.2k01938194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedJohnson v. Zerbst (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Mooney v. Holohan · Patton v. United States

Cited together with Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gideon v. Wainwright · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Fay v. Noia · Von Moltke v. Gillies

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 20,650 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.”
    646 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused — whose life or liberty is at stake — is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. While an accused may waive the right to counsel, whether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record.”
    198 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “average defendant does not have the professional legal skills to protect himself”
    87 later decisions 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.