Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 353 F.3d 617 - United States v. Johnston

United States v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis

353 F.3d 617 · 2003

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
July 2024
most recently cited

37 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Serrano-Lopez (2004), United States v. Carpenter (2005)

37 federal appellate ·

340200320102020decided

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

Relationships

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Litwak v. Oscar Productions, Inc. · Andreas v. United States · United States of America v. Fabian Aguayo-Delgado · United States v. Washington · United States v. Lucas

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

  1. “To obtain a reversal based on prosecutorial misconduct to which there was proper objection, a defendant must show that (1) the prosecutor’s remarks or conduct were improper, and (2) the remarks or conduct affected the defendant’s substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial. If the remarks were improper, then we determine whether they deprived the defendant of a fair trial by examining the cumulative effect of the misconduct, the strength of the properly admitted evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and any curative actions taken by the trial judge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A defendant’s role in the offense is measured by the relevant conduct for which he is held responsible. Once the district court has determined the relevant conduct, each participant’s actions should be compared against the other participants, and each participant’s culpability should be evaluated in relation to the elements of the offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The district court’s factual findings in relation to drug quantity are reviewed for clear error.”
    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.