Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co.’s Empirical Analysis
199 F.3d 710 · 1999
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably McMellon v. United States (2004), Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc. (2004)
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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. § 1084 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co · Pennzoil Company v. Texaco Inc
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“lies at the heart of the state's police power.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he state system does possess greater competence than the federal courts to decide questions of state law impacting state public policy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Notwithstanding the [majority opinion’s] nod to congressionally mandated jurisdiction, unmistakable in the prolix of [its] opinion is the view that statutes conferring jurisdiction on the federal courts should be interpreted very narrowly and, correspondingly, prudential exceptions to such con-gressionally conferred jurisdiction construed very broadly, to the end that federal courts remain tribunals of limited jurisdiction. This is a view accepted and advanced by many on the bench, and, given the trend toward federalization generally, it is understandable and reasonable. But, at bottom, this view is one of policy, not law itself. As a consequence, it is not a view that may permissibly influence our interpretations of statutes or, as here, our shaping of prudential exceptions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.