United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
889 F.2d 1032 · 1989
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably United States v. Thompson (2005), United States v. Brown (2009)
16 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 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Mistretta v. United States · Dunn v. United States · Miller v. Florida · Bell v. United States
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[i]t is not the practice of this court to consider issues on appeal not raised in the district court,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the court [is] not mandated to consider the guidelines.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Agreements to enter into conspiracies can be shown by inferences from the conduct of the participants. United States v. Elledge , 723 F.2d 864 , 865 (11th Cir. 1984). In addition, it need not be shown that the defendant knew all of the details of the alleged conspiracy as knowledge of the essential objective is sufficient to impose liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Deutcsh v. State
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.