Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 Md. App. 205 - Johnson v. State

56 Md. App. 205 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably White v. State (1990), Brown v. State (1988)

40 state decisions

2401983199020002010decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act))

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Blockburger v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Missouri v. Hunter · Albernaz 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) do not constitute conduct proscribed by a “single statute,” (2) are not “of necessity closely intertwined,” and (3) do not relate to each other in such a manner that one offense is “necessarily the overt act” of the other. Nor is this a situation in which one of the statutes “by its very nature affects other offenses.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““[The rule of lenity] is purely a question of reading legislative intent. If the Legislature intended two crimes arising out of a single act to be punished separately, we defer to that legislated choice. If the Legislature intended but a single punishment, we defer to that legislated choice. If we are uncertain as to what the Legislature intended, we turn to the so-called ‘Rule of Lenity,’ by which we give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.” (internal citations omitted).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.