Johnson v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Bruton v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Stovall v. Denno
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i)nterrogating an injured defendant of low intelligence at 5:00 a. m. without informing him of his rights invites a skeptical reaction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Hall“I am not satisfied from the evidence that it was not freely and competently given. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Hall“the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Hall
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.