Collin L. Johnson v. Roger B. Copinger, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary’s Empirical Analysis
420 F.2d 395 · 1969
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently June 1995 · most notably Jones v. Wj Estelle (1983), Negron v. Warden (1980)
41 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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
Relies on Sanders v. United States · Price v. Johnston · Johnson v. State · Johnson v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evidentiary hearing on the merits of a material factual issue, or after a hearing on the merits of an issue of law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a minimum, the newly asserted ground must have been known to the petitioner at the time of his earlier petition. He cannot be charged with having abused the writ of habeas corpus if, at the time of his earlier petition, he was unaware of the facts on which the newly asserted claim is based, or was unaware that those facts could constitute a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If it appears to the court . . . that there is a high probability that the petition will be barred . . ., the court ought to afford petitioner an opportunity to explain his apparent abuse. . . . This conforms with Johnson v. Copinger, 420 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1969), where the court stated: [T]he petitioner is obligated to present facts demonstrating that his earlier failure to raise his claims is excusable and does not amount to an abuse of the writ. However, it is inherent in this obligation . . . that he must be given an opportunity to make his explanation, if he has one. If he is not afforded such an opportunity, the requirement that he satisfy the court that he has not abused the writ is meaningless. Nor do we think that a procedure which allows the imposition of a forfeiture for abuse of the writ, without allowing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard on the issue, comports with the minimum requirements of fairness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bass v. Wainwright
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.