United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
324 F.2d 264 · 1963
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably United States v. Murphy (1994), Commonwealth v. Appleby (1980)
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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. § 113
Relies on Tatum v. United States · Eagleston v. United States · Wisniewski v. State · State v. . Perry
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“almost any object which as used or attempted to be used may endanger life or inflict great bodily harm ... can in certain circumstances be a dangerous weapon.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The main legal contention is that a chair is not a dangerous weapon. While it may not be a dangerous weapon per se, 4 AmJur. Assault and Battery § 34, p. 145, almost any object “which as used or attempted to be used may endanger life or inflict great bodily harm." United States v. Anderson, 190 F.Supp. 589 , 591 (D. Md. 1960), or which, as it is sometimes expressed, “is likely to produce death or great bodily harm," Tatum v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 393 , 110 F.2d 555 , 556 (1940), can in certain circumstances be a dangerous weapon. Illustrating this principle, courts have held that a wine bottle can be a dangerous weapon, Thornton v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 7 , 268 F.2d 583 (1959); shoes can be dangerous weapons, Medlin v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 64 , 207 F.2d 33 (1953); a rake can be a dangerous weapon, Eagleston v. United States, 172 F.2d 194 (9th Cir. 1949); a thrown club can be a dangerous weapon, United States v. Anderson, 190 F.Supp. 589 (D. Md.1961); a brick can be a dangerous weapon, State v. Perry, 226 N.C. 530 , 39 S.E.2d 460 (1946); and a chair leg can be a dangerous weapon, Wisniewski v. State, 51 Del. 84 [ 1 Storey 84 ] 138 A.2d 333 (1957). Not the object’s latent capability alone, but that, coupled with the manner of its use, is determinative. The chair in the instant case was metal and plastic. It was wielded from an upright (overhead) position and brought down upon the victim’s head. Fortuitously, the wound inflicted was not serious, but had ”
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.