Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 Utah 218 - Johnson v. Lewis

Johnson v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
September 2025
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2025

9 state decisions

4019521960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Indianapolis and St Louis Railroad Company v. Horst · Stokes v. Saltonstall · Gleeson v. Virginia Midland Railroad · Gleeson v. Virginia Midland Ry Co · Pennsylvania Co. v. Clark

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

  1. “[T]he duty owing by the carrier to its passengers for hire is definitely greater than such carrier owes to guests and the general public. Although the test in both cases is the care of an ordinary, prudent person under the existing facts and circumstances, the relationship of carrier to its passengers for hire is a circumstance which requires more foresight and greater caution than it owes to guests or the public generally.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Negligence” means the failure to do what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances of the situation, or doing what such person under such existing circumstances would not have done. The essence of the fault may lie in acting or omitting to act. The duty is dictated and measured by the exigencies of the occasion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Contributory negligence is any act or omission of the plaintiff which in any manner, however slight, proximately contributed to cause the injury or damage of which he complains.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.