Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
838 F.2d 201 · 1988
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably United States v. Taglia (1991), United States v. Navarro-Botello (1990)
51 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a defendant may not raise on collateral attack even constitutional claims that could have been raised on appeal unless the defendant establishes 'cause and prejudice' for his omission.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“will not be allowed to do service for an appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“round” to deciding the appeal, and that after dropping his appeal he could file a motion for a reduction of sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 with a greater prospect of success. The defendant cannot press his claims in two courts at once but must choose.f 1 Johnson, id. at 204 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 6 . See 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a)(1) & (2); 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (e). 7 . See generally Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic 100-101 (8th ed. 1990) ("when we apply a generalization to individual cases that it does not properly govern, we commit the fallacy of Accident”). 8 . See id. at 101 (regarding the fallacy of Accident: "there is no fallacy more insidious than that of treating a statement which in many connections is not misleading as if it were true always and without qualification.”
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.