Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 932 S.W.2d 296 - Johnson v. State

Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently October 2016

17 state decisions

110199620002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 167th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Montgomery v. State · Moore v. Texas · Williams v. State · McCleskey v. Kemp · Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Bell Et Al.

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

  1. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident ...”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Ludwig v. State · Corley v. State
  2. “there is less need to show significant identity between the facts of the other transactions and those of the case being tried” than there would be if, for example, the issue was one of identity. See id. 3 . Paul Bailey testified that he and his wife, as part of a prison ministry, began writing to appellant in 1987. He explained that this continued until appellant was released”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Corley 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.