Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 50 Haw. 525 - State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
April 2009
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably State v. Fukusaku (1997), State v. Collins (1970)

33 state decisions

16019681970198019902000decided

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 Carroll v. United States · Peters v. Jamieson · Territory v. Balarosa · Territory v. Anderson

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

  1. “[A] criminal statute `must be strictly construed and ... it cannot be extended beyond the plain meaning of the terms found therein.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “By State in criminal cases. An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the State from the district or circuit courts direct to the supreme court in all criminal cases, in the following instances: (1) From an order or judgment quashing, setting aside, or sustaining a motion to dismiss any indictment or information or any count thereof; (2) From an order or judgment, sustaining a special plea in bar, or dismissing the case where the defendant has not been put in jeopardy; (3) From an order granting a new trial; (4) From an order arresting judgment; (5) From a ruling on a question of law adverse to the State where the defendant was convicted and appeals from the judgment; (6) From the sentence, on the ground that it is illegal; (7) From a pre-trial order granting a motion for the suppression of evidence, including a confession or admission, or the return of property in which case the supreme court shall give priority to such an appeal and the order shall be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal; (8) From an order denying a request by the State for protective order for nondisclosure of witness for their personal safety under Rule 16(e)(4) of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure, in which case the supreme court shall give priority to such appeal and the order shall be stayed pending outcome of such appeal; provided that no appeal shall be taken by or allowed the State in any case where there has been a verdict in favor of the defendant.”
    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.