Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 639 F.2d 236 - Johnson v. Hopper

Johnson v. Hopper’s Empirical Analysis

639 F.2d 236 · 1981

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
March 2000
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably Baty v. Balkcom (1981), Pamela Lynn Perillo v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (2000)

17 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

280198119902000decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Glasser v. United States · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Holloway v. Arkansas · 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “becomes apparent when one considers the nigh impossible task of making a meaningful qualitative analysis of trial counsel proficiency, in a case involving divided loyalties, from an examination of the transcript alone.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “except under the most extraordinary circumstances”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.