Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 F.1d 180 - In re Johnson

In re Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

224 F. 180 · 1915

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
June 1922
most recently cited

3 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co. · Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · National Bank v. Matthews · Pullman's Co v. Central Transp Co

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

  1. ““When a [criminal] statute imposes specific penalties for its violation, where the act is not malum in se, and the purpose of the statute can be accomplished without declaring contracts in violation thereof illegal, the inference is that it was not the intention of the lawmakers to render such contracts illegal and unenforceable.” . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.