Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 956 F.2d 197 - United States v. Johnson

United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

956 F.2d 197 · 1992

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
September 2015
most recently cited

82 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably United States v. Carranza (2002), United States v. Reese (1993)

82 federal appellate ·

1050199220002010decided

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. § 658

Relies on American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Williams v. United States · LaBranche v. United States Olympic Committee · United States v. Spillone · United States v. Benny

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

  1. “Whether a jury instruction misstates elements of a statutory crime is a question of law reviewed de novo.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the trial court erred by instructing the jury [that] the defendant had been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]o act with ‘intent to defraud’ means to act knowingly and with the intent to deceive or cheat, ordinarily for the purpose of causing a financial loss to another and bringing about a financial gain to one’s self.”
    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.