Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
340 F.3d 1219 · 2003
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Duncan v. Walker · Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor Warden · Custis v. United States · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] factual proposition is typically something capable in principle of falsification (or possibly even verification) by some empirical inquiry, while a legal proposition is identified by consulting some authoritative legal source.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“note[d] in passing that, should appellant obtain at some future date the vacation of the state court conviction in question because [it was] obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, he could petition the district court under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 for the relief he now asks us to provide.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
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.