Grant v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
15 F.3d 146 · 1994
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2022
6 federal appellate · 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · Shelley v. Kraemer · Bibby v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Pulliam v. Allen
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no “case or controversy” exists between a judge who adjudicates claims under a statute and a litigant who attacks the constitutionality of the statute. Judges sit as arbiters without a personal or institutional stake on either side of the constitutional controversy... .Almost invariably, they have played no role in the statute’s enactment, they have not initiated its enforcement, and they do not even have an institutional interest in following their prior decisions (if any) concerning its constitutionality if an authoritative contrary legal determination has subsequently been made (for example, by the United States Supreme Court). In part for these reasons, one seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a statute on constitutional grounds ordinarily sues the enforcement official authorized to bring suit under the statute; that individual’s institutional obligations require him to defend the statute. One typically does not sue the court or judges who are supposed to adjudicate the merits of the suit .... ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“no doubt that [the judge] acted in an adjudicative capacity by appointing a guardian for [the plaintiff] upon the application of a third party,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wolfe v. Strankman“judges adjudicating cases pursuant to state statutes may not be sued under § 1983 in a suit challenging [a] state law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wolfe v. Strankman
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.