Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 212 Ind. 375 - Johnston v. State

Johnston v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1937

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
5
states following
July 1989
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 1989 · most notably Kist v. Coughlin (1944), State Ex Rel. Schumacher v. Adams Circuit Court (1947)

3 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

130193719401950196019701980decided

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 Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Virginia · State, Ex Rel. v. Leathers, Judge · State Ex Rel. Weatherholt v. Perry Circuit Court · 75 Ind. App. 500 - Clarke v. City of Evansville · Roby v. Smith

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

  1. ““ ‘. . . Changes of judge and changes of venue, from the county are provided for in the same statute, and they may be had in any civil action, which, by the statutory definition, means any action for the.- enforcement or protection of private rights and the redress of private wrongs.’ ” ■”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The act in question was held unconstitutional in Roby, Trustee v. Smith et al. (1892), 131 Ind. 342 , 30 N. E. 1093 , and if it was intended to prohibit a citizen of Indiana from delivering property to a trustee in Ohio, under a contract entered into in Ohio, for the benefit of himself and others, who are non-residents of the state of Indiana, its unconstitutionality can scarcely be questioned.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is asserted that appellant parted with title to the property in question for the purpose of avoiding taxes, but, since appellant did in fact part with title and control of the property, as she had a legal right to do, her object or purpose is of no importance. Id. 8 N.E.2d at 594 .”
    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.