United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
322 federal appellate · 37 district · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 888 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably United States v. Pugh (2008), Pepper v. United States (2011)
322 federal appellate · 37 district · 94 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedJohnson v. United States (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Bailey v. United States · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Gozlon-Peretz v. United States · United States v. Granderson
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 888 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress intended supervised release to assist individuals in their transition to community life. Supervised release fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration.”
49 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trial court, as it sees fit, may modify an individual's conditions of supervised release. [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(e)(2). Furthermore, the court may terminate an individual’s release obligations "at any time after the expiration of one year ... if it is satis- fied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released in the interest of justice.” [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(e)(1).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed ... (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; ... (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for ... (B) in the case of a violation of ... supervised release, the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to [ 28 U.S.C. § 994 (a)(3)], taking into account any amendments made to such guidelines or policy statements by act of Congress ... ; (5) any pertinent policy statement- (A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to [ 28 U.S.C. § 994 (a)(2)], subject to any amendments made to such policy statement by act of Congress ...; and (B) that, except as provided in [18 U.S.C. § ] 3742(g), is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced[;] (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.”
3 later decisions 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.