Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 F.3d 484 - Johnson v. City of Cincinnati

Johnson v. City of Cincinnati’s Empirical Analysis

310 F.3d 484 · 2002

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Watson (2009), League of United Latin American Citizens v. Bredesen (2007)

38 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions

540200220102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Graham v. Connor · United States v. Mendenhall · Roe v. Wade · Stanley v. Illinois · Gerstein v. Pugh

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

  1. “travel locally through public spaces and roadways.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. United States v. Baroni · City of Blue Ash v. Price
  2. “[I]n each of the cases addressed by our sister circuits, the government not only curtailed the suspect's right to interstate travel, it also imposed additional restrictions ..., such as obligations to post bond, attend court hearings, and contact pretrial services.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. Theresa Karam,plaintiff v. City of Burbank, a Municipality · Spiller v. Dist. of Columbia
  3. “has recognized a protected right to intrastate travel, i.e., 'a right to travel locally through public spaces and roadways.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. Thomas v. Haslam · Thomas v. Haslam

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.