Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 Idaho 123 - Johnson v. State

Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Mahaffey v. State (1964), Quinlan v. Idaho Commission for Pardons & Parole (2003)

26 state decisions

801962197019801990200020102020decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Price v. Johnston · Bowen v. Johnston · Holiday v. Johnston · John McNamara v. William Henkel

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

  1. ““Even though the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is generally considered discretionary with the court, it should be liberally granted. The following statement from 24 Cal.Jur.2d, p. 543, Habeas Corpus § 77, is explanatory of the test to be applied: “ ‘As an extraordinary remedy, the writ of habeas corpus is not subject to the rules of technical pleading nor its swift relief hindered by captious objections or fine spun theories of procedure, and a petition therefore will not be scrutinized with technical nicety. And with respect to the numerous applications made in propria persona, a court cannot impose on prisoners unlearned in the law the same high standards of the legal art that might be imposed on members of the legal profession.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the limitations upon the remedy afforded by habeas corpus should be flexible and readily available to prevent manifest injustice, for, as Mr. Justice Black has expressed it, the principles judicially established for the delimitation of the habeas corpus action `must be construed and applied so as to preserve — not destroy — constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Every person unlawfully committed, detained, confined or restrained of his liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint.”
    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.