508 F. Supp. 52 - Johnson v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Opper v. United States · United States v. Mauro · United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission · State v. DiRienzo · United States v. Joseph Chrzanowski, in No. 73-1591, and Alex Chrzanowski. Appeal of Alex Chrzanowski, in No. 73-1592
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In discussing the same point on the co-defendant’s appeal, the [New Jersey] Appellate Division noted that the two robberies were clearly part of a common plan or scheme, evidenced by the fact that after the first robbery the money was hidden and defendants immediately committed the second robbery.... The record of the trial shows that five prosecution witnesses were essential to the proof of both robberies, that the robberies were committed within an hour of each other, that both targets were liquor stores, and that the same gun was used.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holmes v. Scully
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.