United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
391 F.3d 67 · 2004
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 6 U.S.C. § 202 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United States v. Olano · Johnson v. Zerbst · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Dickerson v. United States · United States v. Mendoza-Lopez
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege”); City of New York v. State, 40 N.Y.2d 659, 669 , 389 N.Y.S.2d 332 , 357 N.E.2d 988 (1976) (under New York law, a waiver is”
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.