Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 864 SW2D 708 - Johnson v. State

Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Johnson v. State (1995), Commonwealth v. Matos (1996)

25 state decisions

150199320002010decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Florida v. Royer · United States v. Mendenhall · Florida v. Bostick · Solem v. Helm

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

  1. ““the officers walked around the corner into the breezeway, they did nothing that would lead a reasonable innocent person to believe that he was not free to leave. Their mere presence in this case did not constitute a show of authority. The officers’ mere presence in no way intruded on Johnson’s freedom by momentarily detaining him. Thus, Johnson was not seized under the Fourth Amendment or article one, section nine, when the officers made their presence known by walking into the breezeway and within the view of Johnson and the other two men.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““Heitman clearly gives us the authority to grant defendants greater rights under the Texas Constitution than afforded by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution. Because we can do so, however, does not mean that we should do so. State precedent existing before the Fourth Amendment was made applicable to the states does not support granting defendants greater rights under article one, section nine than they currently enjoy under the Fourth Amendment.” 3 (emphasis supplied in original.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““Requiring that a suspect yield to a show of authority or be physically stopped by the police before being deemed “seized” under article one, section nine serves the public interest by encouraging compliance with police orders without sacrificing the suspect’s constitutional rights to challenge the lawfulness of those orders and invoke the statutory exclusionary remedy.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.