Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 425 N.W.2d 903 - State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2020

19 state decisions

11019881990200020102020decided

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 State v. Kaufman · State v. Bourbeau · State v. Lang · State v. Saul

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

  1. “"[W]e do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to see if there is substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Johnson, 425 N.W.2d 903, 906 (N.D.1988).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to ascertain if there is substantial evidence to warrant the conviction. A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “To establish theft of property under NDCC § 12.1-23-02(1), the State must prove ... [an individual] (1) knowingly (2) takes or exercises unauthorized control over, or makes an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, the property of another (3) with intent to deprive the owner thereof.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re JK

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.