Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Johnson Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 04, 2005

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

44 entries 2 linked 42 unlinked
Show
  1. Woodford Vs. Garceau US Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2003
  2. Houston Vs. Lack US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1988
  3. Johnson v. United
    Search
  4. States - 03-9685 (2005) Syllabus October Term, 2004 Johnson V. United
    Search
  5. e.g. , Apprendi v. New
    Search
  6. joined. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Scalia, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Johnson v. United
    Search
  7. States - 03-9685 (2005) Opinion of the Court Johnson V. United
    Search
  8. Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-9685 Robert Johnson, Jr., Petitioner V. United
    Search
  9. s career offender findings were not clearly erroneous. United States v. Johnson
    Search
  10. Id., at 8, n. 1. We denied certiorari. Johnson v. United
    Search
  11. s effective date. Duncan v. Walker
    Search
  12. Brackett v. United
    Search
  13. States , 270 F. 3d 60 (CA1 2001) (same), with United States v. Gadsen
    Search
  14. that the validity of a prior conviction supporting an enhanced federal sentence is beyond challenge. Compare Lewis v. United
    Search
  15. a sentence enhanced for a prior conviction is entitled to a reduction if the earlier conviction is vacated. Custis v. United
    Search
  16. Daniels v. United
    Search
  17. States, 532 U. S. 374 (2001). Such was the premise in Custis v. United
    Search
  18. obtained in violation of the right to appointed counsel, an exception we thought necessary to avoid undermining Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  19. U. S. 335 (1963). Custis v. United
    Search
  20. Id., at 497. Daniels v. United
    Search
  21. Cf. Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar
    Search
  22. claim, Daniels v. United
    Search
  23. s principal purposes, Duncan v. Walker
    Search
  24. by the Government, indicates only that Johnson claimed invalid waiver of his constitutional rights. United States v. Johnson
    Search
  25. party ever argued that his objection could have been litigated under the Gideon exception recognized in Custis v. United
    Search
  26. motion should have been deemed filed on an earlier date by operation of the so-called prison mailbox rule, see Houston v. Lack
    Search
  27. U. S. 266 (1988). Footnote 3 Hindsight after Daniels v. United
    Search
  28. would have received notice of vacatur if he had acted promptly, though this may be a difficult showing. Johnson v. United
    Search
  29. States - 03-9685 (2005) Kennedy, J., Dissenting Johnson V. United
    Search
  30. s position, our opinions in Custis v. United
    Search
  31. States, 511 U. S. 485 (1994) and Daniels v. United
    Search
  32. is designed to address myriad claims, including post-trial factual discoveries such as violations of Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  33. Apprendi v. New
    Search
  34. Opinion of the Court Johnson V. United
    Search
  35. Robert Johnson, Jr., Petitioner V. United
    Search
  36. United States v. Johnson
    Search
  37. Duncan v. Walker
    Search
  38. United States v. Gadsen
    Search
  39. Compare Lewis v. United
    Search
  40. Custis v. United
    Search
  41. Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  42. Kennedy, J., Dissenting Johnson V. United
    Search
  43. and Daniels v. United
    Search
  44. of Brady v. Maryland
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial