Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 562 F.2d 312 - John Calvin Johnson v. Walter M. Riddle

John Calvin Johnson v. Walter M. Riddle’s Empirical Analysis

562 F.2d 312 · 1977

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2023

3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

50197719801990200020102020decided

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 Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Francis v. Henderson · Bailey v. Commonwealth · Garland v. Cox

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

  1. ““Petitioner chose to raise these claims for the first time seventeen years after his trial and conviction, although nothing prevented him from doing so at a time when the State might have had a chance of reconstructing the record and surrounding events in an effort to explain why an appeal was never filed. We agree with the district court that petitioner’s contention is raised too late to avail him. In the present case, in contrast, we have only petitioner’s allegation that he requested an appeal, and that counsel failed to perfect one. Based on this allegation, easily made after 17 years of silence but obviously difficult to disprove, petitioner would have us remand for an evidentiary hearing, where, presumably, the State should be required to rebut what, on its face, is a claim that might entitle petitioner to the relief he seeks. If the State were shown to have a reasonable opportunity to make the kind of factual reconstruction necessary to such a task, that might be another case, but nothing in the record suggests the opportunity exists after a lapse of 17 years. In arriving at our decision, we also give weight to the fact that petitioner makes no effort to explain or to justify the delay.””
    2 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.