Johnson v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
144 F.2d 565 · 1944
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2008 · most notably Higgins v. Steele (1952), 119 Wis. 2d 788 - State v. Shillcutt (1984)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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
Relies on Mattox v. United States · Pyle v. State of Kansas · Waley v. Johnston · Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co. · Wells 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Attached to the Petition for Leave to Appeal filed herein is a copy of the .original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and copies of the orders entered by the District Court. Both orders were based by the District Court solely upon the proposition that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus fails to disclose that petitioner has a meritorious cause and that it presented no issue of fact upon which the petitioner is entitled to a hearing under the rule announced in Waley v. Johnston, 316 U.S. 101 , 62 S.Ct. 964 , 86 L.Ed. 1302 . “A District Court is not required to permit a poor person to file a petition without payment of costs unless there is a showing of merit. Whittle v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co., C.C., 104 F. 286 ; Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U. S. 43 , 35 S.Ct. 236 , 59 L.Ed. 457 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Richardson v. Hatch
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.