United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
968 F.2d 768 · 1992
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably United States v. Cannon (1996), United States v. Fields (1996)
66 federal appellate · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Berger v. United States · Russell v. United States · Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman · Viereck v. United States
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“And I'm asking you to tell her and all of the other drug dealers like her that we don't want that stuff in Northern Kentucky ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ ‘a single misstep’ on the part of the prosecutor may be so destructive of the right to a fair trial that reversal is mandated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court has established a two-part test for reversible prosecutorial misconduct: (1) the prosecutor’s remarks or conduct must have been improper, and (2) such remarks or conduct must have prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. We employ the following three factors to determine the prejudicial effect of prosecutorial misconduct: (1) the cumulative effect of such misconduct; (2) the strength of the properly admitted evidence of the defendant’s guilt; and (3) the curative actions taken by the court.”
2 later decisions 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.