Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 FSUPP 590 - Johnson v. Hunger

Johnson v. Hunger’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
November 1995
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1995

2 federal appellate · 3 district ·

401967197019801990decided

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 Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Taylor v. Board of Education of the City School District of New Rochelle · Taylor v. Board of Education of City School District of New Rochelle · 226 F. Supp. 208 - Blocker v. Board of Education of Manhasset, New York

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

  1. ““The amended complaint * * * exceeds the bounds permitted under that rule [Rule 8(a) Fed.R.Civ.P.]. For the most part it represents a confusing and foggy mixture of evidentiary statements, arguments and conclusory matter. If it were permitted to stand, the defendants would be unable to file meaningful answers to much of what is alleged. They would be forced to reply in kind by pleading further prolix matter. The issues would be obscured and remain undefined. This would lead to wasteful and unnecessary pretrial discovery, after which a pretrial judge would at some point face the necessity of requiring the plaintiffs to clarify and redefine their contentions.” Johnson v. Hunger, 266 F.Supp. 590, 591 (S.D.N.Y.1967).”
    2 later decisions 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.