Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 912 F.2d 172 - Johnston v. Mizell

Johnston v. Mizell’s Empirical Analysis

912 F.2d 172 · 1990

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Beets v. Scott (1995), Williams IV v. Turpin (1996)

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

200199020002010decided

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 · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Holloway v. Arkansas · 122 Ill. 2d 176 - People v. Enoch · 104 Ill. 2d 504 - People v. Albanese

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. ““Under the Strickland test, the defendant must show two things: (1) that his attorney’s conduct fell below the minimum professional standards of conduct, and (2) that this deficient performance was so prejudicial that the outcome for the defendant probably was changed. Of the Strickland test the defendant must prove both ‘prongs’; conversely, then, upon the defendant’s failure to prove either prong, a reviewing court may dispose of the defendant’s claim.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[i]n Illinois, a post-trial motion for a new trial is a critical stage in criminal proceedings”
    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.