Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 270 Neb. 316 - Johnson v. State

Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

6 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Doe v. Omaha Public School District (2007), Edwards v. Douglas County (2021)

6 district · 33 state decisions

140200520102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2680

Relies on United States v. Shearer · Sheridan v. United States · Westcott v. City of Omaha · Thigpen v. United States · Franklin v. United States

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

  1. “Where the plaintiffs tort claim is based on the mere fact of government employment (such as a respondeat superior claim) or on the employment relationship between the intentional tort-feasor and the government (such as a negligent supervision or negligent hiring claim), the exception in § 81-8,219(4) applies and the State is immune from suit.... Johnson’s causes of action against the defendants fall squarely within the second of the two enumerated instances; each are based upon the employment relationship between Johnson’s alleged assailant and the defendants. Thus, the intentional tort exception of § 81-8,219(4) applies and bars Johnson’s action against the defendants.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The PSTCA reflects a limited waiver of governmental immunity and prescribes the procedure for maintenance of a suit against a political subdivision. It is the exclusive means by which a tort claim may be maintained against a political subdivision or its employees. Statutes that purport to waive the protection of sovereign immunity of the State or its subdivisions are strictly construed in favor of the sovereign and against the waiver.”
    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.