Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2006 · most notably Johnson v. Oklahoma (1981), Willingham v. State (1997)
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
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 Blockburger v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Brown v. Ohio · Green v. United States · Abbate 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Traditionally, the test employed to determine whether a person has been placed in jeopardy twice for a single offense has been to ask whether each of the offenses charged requires proof of an additional fact that is not necessary to the other. Thus, a single act may be an offense against two statutes. If each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, neither multiple prosecutions nor multiple punishments are barred by the prohibition against double jeopardy, even though each offense may arise from the same act or criminal episode. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Collins v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 340 , 106 P.2d 273 (1940).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bussett v. State · Ocampo v. State“In dealing with these cases, an appellate court must consider both aspects of double jeopardy ... More than one trial for a single offense and more than one punishment for a single offense. We believe that the protection against multiplicity of trials is best advanced by application of the `same transaction test.' However, the protection against multiplicity of punishments is a separate and independent question; and even where the `same transaction test' mandates a single trial, application of the `same evidence test' could result in a holding that a defendant could be punished separately for each of the offenses involved... . In taking this course, we do nothing more than elevate the distinct purposes of the Double Jeopardy Doctrine to the equal dignity and reverence each deserves. Johnson, supra, at 1144 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sutton v. State“[W]e merely follow the collective wisdom of this Court’s prior decisions and elect the course which allows this Court to utilize the necessary tools to accomplish the task before it. In taking this course, we do nothing more than elevate the distinct purposes of the Double Jeopardy Doctrine to the equal dignity and reverence each [test] deserves.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hunnicutt v. State
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.