Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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. “After a state prisoner had filed a [habe-as] petition challenging his Alabama .murder conviction and death sentence, the district court conditionally granted his petition and vacated his death sentence. The trial court subsequently held new sentencing proceedings, and it again sentenced the state prisoner to death. He then filed a [habeas] petition challenging his new sentence on the ground that, inter alia, he did not have fair warning that his conduct-would be sufficient to warrant a death sentence under- Alabama law.- The district court granted the petition, concluding-that it was not successive .... and that the state prisoner’s fair warning claim was meritorious. The Eleventh Circuit reversed[,] ... conclude[ing] that the state prisoner’s fair warning claim was successive because it could have been raised in his prior [habeas] petition— [The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 114 F. Supp. 3d 4 - Alli-Balogun v. United States

2. “Under Magwood, however, where ‘there is a new judgment intervening between the two habeas petitions, ... an application challenging the resulting new judgment is not “second or successive” at all.’ Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And the Supreme Court has previously stated that ‘[a] judgment of conviction includes both the adjudication of guilt and the sentence.’ Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 132 , 113 S.Ct. 1993 , 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993). It follows that, where a first habeas petition results in an amended judgment, a subsequent petition is not successive regardless of whether it challenges the conviction, the sentence, or both.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Allen v. Colson

3. “[W]here a first habeas petition results in an amended judgment, a subsequent petition is not successive regardless of whether it challenges the conviction, the sentence, or both ... A different result is not warranted by the fact that [petitioner’s] claims could have been raised in his prior [habeas] motion or the fact that he effectively challenges an unamended component of the judgment. In light of Magwood , we must interpret successive applications with respect to the judgment challenged and not with respect to particular components of that judgment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 114 F. Supp. 3d 4 - Alli-Balogun v. United States