Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
June 2023
most recently cited
22 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 37 U.S.C. § 212
Relies on Miller v. Sears · Hartland v. Hartland · Pedersen v. Zielski · State v. University of Alaska · Koller v. Reft
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Except as otherwise provided by law or agreed to by the parties, the prevailing party in a civil case shall be awarded attorney's fees calculated under this rule.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A prevailing party in a civil case is normally entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, per Rule 82. Divorce cases are usually excepted from this general rule; fees awards in divorce cases are typically based on the parties' relative economic situations and earning powers, rather than prevailing party status. This "divorce exception’’ to Rule 82 is based on a broad reading of AS 25.24.140(a)(1), and on the reality that there is usually no prevailing party in a divorce case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“calls into question [a party's] litigation conduct and the potential merits of [the party's] underlying ... motions, we assess de novo the legal and factual viability of his [or her] motions and review relevant findings of fact for clear error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Herring v. Herring
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.