Arthur James Julius v. W.J. Johnson, Warden, Holman Unit’s Empirical Analysis
840 F.2d 1533 · 1988
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2010 · most notably Coe v. Bell (1998), Bell v. Cone (2005)
32 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Jones v. Barnes
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he mere existence of a 'plain error' rule does not preclude a finding of procedural default,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tarver v. Hopper · Weeks v. Jones“under a duty in capital cases to 'notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kornahrens v. Evatt“[c]ounsel simply made the informed decision that the best way to save Julius' life was to argue to the jury that there was still some doubt whether or not Julius committed the crime.”
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.