Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 717 P.2d 1336 - Johns v. Shulsen

Johns v. Shulsen’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2010

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

601986199020002010decided

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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · One Lot Emerald Cut Stones One Ring v. United States · Standlee v. Rhay

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is universally recognized that the standard of proof in civil actions is by a preponderance of the evidence.... By contrast, in a criminal prosecution every element of the offense must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the failure of the State to prove the elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt cannot logically estop another fact finder ... from finding that those same elements were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Parole revocation is an administrative proceeding and not a criminal prosecution. It stems from a clear violation of the rules and regulations imposed as a condition of parole. Invariably, freedom from criminal activity is a condition of parole; however, a conviction is not a prerequisite.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.