Johnson v. Gomez’s Empirical Analysis
92 F.3d 964 · 1996
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 29 Cal. 4th 616 - In Re Rosenkrantz (2002), Roller v. Gunn (1997)
15 federal appellate · 6 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 Dobbert v. Florida · Collins v. Youngblood · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · California Department of Corrections v. Morales · Beazell v. State of Ohio Chatfield
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“final parole decisionmaking authority from the [Board] and place[d] it in the hands of the [G]overnor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) During the 30 days following the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension by a parole authority of the parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate prison term based upon a conviction of murder, the Governor, when reviewing the authority's decision pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 8 . . ., shall review materials provided by the parole authority. [¶] (b) If the Governor decides to reverse or modify a parole decision of a parole authority pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 8 . . ., he or she shall send a written statement to the inmate specifying the reasons for his or her decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Cases assessing the effects of sentencing guidelines amendments also require that the prisoner demonstrate an increase in punishment with certainty before finding an Ex Post Facto Clause violation ... Because we cannot say with any similar certainty that the retroactive application of Proposition 89 in Johnson’s case resulted in an actual increase in punishment called for under prior law, the application did not violate ex post facto principles and the district court correctly denied relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.