Johnson v. Metz’s Empirical Analysis
609 F.2d 1052 · 1979
Citation profile
37 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably Daye v. Attorney General of New York (1982), Verdin v. O'Leary (1992)
37 federal appellate ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Ashe v. Swenson · Picard v. Connor · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Tumey v. State of Ohio
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is difficult for this panel to believe . . . that no post-conviction remedy whatever will be available by way of state collateral relief when a serious federal constitutional issue is involved. “We have been cited to no case, nor have we found any, in which the intervention of a trial judge in the conduct of trial has been found so prejudicial as to amount to a violation of constitutional due process. Particularly because of the lack of authority, we think it appropriate that the state court should be allowed, in the first instance, to pass on the constitutional point fairly presented to it. We say this without attempting to suggest the result in this obviously serious case. “We trust that upon a post-conviction hearing careful attention will be given to this record by the state courts in terms of the serious allegation of constitutional deprivation of the right to fair trial.” Id. at 1056 (footnote omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Klein v. Harris · Johnson v. Scully““The question of fair trial in relation to the overall conduct of the trial judge has in the past been stated in terms of either state law or the supervisory power of the particular court. In the absence of a claim of a federal constitutional violation, we must consider whether the New York appellate courts had a fair opportunity to consider the conduct of the trial judge in this case as violating fundamental rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution.” Id. 3”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for what will surely be sensitive examination by the state courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.