Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 376 F.3d 414 - Harris v. Johnson

Harris v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

376 F.3d 414 · 2004

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
2
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably McNair v. Allen (2008), Cooey v. Strickland (2007)

34 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

610200420102020decided

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

Relies on Nelson v. Campbell Commissioner Alabama Department of Corrections et al. · Gomez v. United States District Court for Northern District of California a-767 · State v. Webb · Sims v. State

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

  1. “he was unaware of the State's intention to execute him by injecting the three chemicals he now challenges.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “That argument is nothing more than a restatement of the very thing the plaintiff is not entitled to do under Gomez v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 503 U.S. 653, 654 , 112 S.Ct. 1652 , 118 L.Ed.2d 293 (1992) — namely, to wait until his execution is imminent before suing to enjoin the state’s method of carrying it out. The denial of certiorari may well have cast the issue in a new and urgent light for Harris, but it also entitled the state to set a date for, and proceed with, his execution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We see no convincing reason why, after Alabama made lethal injection its primary method of execution, Jones could not have brought his method-of-execution challenge sooner than he did. Jones knew of the State’s intention to execute him at least by July 2002. “It was during that period' — in which the execution wás not so much an imminent or impending danger as it was an event reasonably likely to occur in the future — that Jones needed to file this challenge.””
    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.