Johnson v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis
332 F.3d 199 · 2003
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 25 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Gilles v. Davis (2005), Marra v. Philadelphia Housing Authority (2007)
42 federal appellate · 25 district · 9 state decisions
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 Terry v. Ohio · City of Canton v. Harris · Florida v. Royer · Ornelas v. United States · United States v. Cortez
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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[J]udgment as a matter of law should be granted sparingly.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A seizure does not occur every time a police officer approaches someone to ask a few questions. Such consensual encounters are important tools of law enforcement and need not be based on any suspicion of wrongdoing.” Johnson v. Campbell, 332 F.3d 199 , 205 (3d Cir.2003); accord United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 , 204-05, 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 , 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). Officers may”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and giving it the advantage of every fair and reasonable inference, there is [ ]sufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could find liability.”
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.