Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 569 S.W.2d 808 - State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
August 2011
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2011

21 state decisions

10019781980199020002010decided

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 Coleman v. Alabama · Burdeau v. McDowell · Lustig v. United States · United States v. DeBerry · United States v. Ford

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

  1. “The writ of certiorari may be granted whenever authorized by law, and also in all cases where an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred, or is acting illegally, when, in the judgment of the court, there is no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy. This section does not apply to actions governed by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “tantamount to the denial to either party of a day in court”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Counsel could have protected his client’s right to a proper preliminary hearing by filing a petition for common law certiora-ri and supersedeas with one of the judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals, and, if necessary, with a member of this Court.” 3 This dictum was prompted by the fact that a preliminary hearing is “a critical stage in the prosecution of a criminal action and ... is mandated by •statute,” and because it is a “pretrial type of arraignment where certain rights may be sacrificed or lost.” 569 S.W.2d at 815”
    1 later decision 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.