Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 314 F.3d 409 - Johnson v. Henderson

Johnson v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis

314 F.3d 409 · 2002

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco (2008), Johnson v. Lucent Technologies Inc. (2011)

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

220200220102020decided

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 National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw · Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.

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

  1. “[w]e review de novo a grant of summary judgment and must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he law of this Circuit is somewhat inconsistent regarding the standard of review applicable to a district court's determination of whether equitable estoppel or equitable tolling applies to a claim barred by the statute of limitations.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Equitable estoppel ... may come into play if the defendant takes active steps to prevent the plaintiff from suing in time — a situation that the Seventh Circuit terms fraudulent concealment.”
    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.