Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 454 U.S. 920 - Johnson v. Virginia

Johnson v. Virginia’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2014 · most notably Watkins v. Virginia (1986), Collins v. Francis (1984)

12 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

4701981199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Fare v. Michael C. · Sanabria v. United States · Schacht v. United States

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

  1. “[A]n accused is under no obligation to state precisely why he wants a lawyer. If we were to distinguish cases based on the wording of an accused’s request, the value of the right to counsel would be substantially diminished. As we stated in Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 719, 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 2568, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979), “an accused’s request for an attorney is per se an invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights, requiring that all interrogation cease.” ... [Furthermore], it is no more safe to assume that a waiver is valid when an accused has made a prior request to the judge at his arraignment than when he has made the request to police. In both cases, the accused informs an individual in authority that he would like an attorney — and yet shortly thereafter, state officials, apparently disregarding his request, ask him to waive his rights.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “this time requirement is not jurisdictional and may be waived by the Court 'in the exercise of its discretion when the ends of justice so require.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.