State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Manning v. State (2005), State v. Hoyt (1991)
26 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 Anders v. California · Douglas v. People of State of California · Williams v. United States · United States v. Smith · People v. Callaway
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Coram nobis], which [the Utah Supreme Court] declared to be available 'in Utah in appropriate cases, Neal v. Beckstead, 3 Utah 2d 403 , 285 P.2d 129 (1955), was used by a sentencing court to modify or vacate a judgment of conviction on the basis of facts which, without defendant’s fault, did not appear on the face of the record and as to which defendant was without other remedy. State v. Gee, 30 Utah 2d 148 , 514 P.2d 809 (1973); Sullivan v. Turner, 22 Utah 2d 85 , 448 P.2d 907 (1968). Thus, coram no-bis could be used, in carefully limited circumstances, to modify or vacate a judgment where extra-record facts showed that the defendant had been deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial, including the right to the assistance of counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rees · Manning v. State“was induced, by reason of that representation, to allow his time to take an appeal to expire or that he was misled as to his right to appeal, he should — in accordance with the procedure we have adopted — be resentenced nunc pro tunc upon the previous finding of guilt so as to afford him “an opportunity of prosecuting and perfecting an appeal, since the time for taking such appeal would date from the rendition of the new judgment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Montoya“Nunc pro tunc, which means ‘now for then,’ is probably a misnomer for this circumstance, where the court is resentencing to give the judgment of conviction not retroactive but present effect — 'then for now.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gordon
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.