Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 660 So. 2d 961 - Hiter v. State (1995), 660 So. 2d 1285 - Gossett v. State (1995)
51 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 McClain v. State · Washington v. Harper · 503 So. 2d 803 - Wetz v. State · 481 So. 2d 203 - Fisher v. State · 533 So. 2d 1078 - Nixon v. State
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e must, with respect to each element of the offense, consider all of the evidence-not just the evidence which supports the case for the prosecution in the light most favorable to the verdict. The credible evidence which is consistent with the guilt must be accepted as true. The prosecution must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Matters regarding the weight and credibility to be accorded the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. We may reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“An agreement to sell cocaine could possibly be inferred by the combined acts of Johnson and Spruill, yet there is no evidence that Spruill knew Johnson would bring Ellington or any other cocaine purchaser to his home. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, Johnson knew that Spruill sold cocaine, but Ellington also possessed this knowledge; Johnson directed Ellington to Spruill’s house, and accompanied Ellington to the door, knocked on the door, and told Spruill that they wanted to purchase cocaine. Spruill then supplied the cocaine to Ellington. This is insufficient evidence of,the actors’ recognition that they were entering into a common plan and knowingly intended to further its common purpose.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lee v. State · McDougle 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.