Johnson v. Maryland’s Empirical Analysis
915 F.2d 892 · 1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2013
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 Chapman v. State of California · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Rushen v. Spain · Curtis v. State · United States v. Hankish
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“); Johnson v. Maryland, 915 F.2d 892 , 896 (4th Cir.1990) (same). The substance of the ex parte communications and their effect on juror impartiality are questions of historical fact entitled to this presumption absent”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Howard v. Moore
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.