Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 371 NW2D 94 - Johnson v. Miller

Johnson v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
4
states following
February 2003
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 2003

5 state decisions

30198519902000decided

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 Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co. · Armstrong v. Mailand · Griffiths v. Lovelette Transfer Co., Inc. · Bohm v. Independent School Dist. No. 283

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

  1. “Respondent Michael J. Miller owns the residential rental property located at 2822 Oliver Avenue North in Minneapolis. For two years before December 1979, he leased the bottom half of the duplex to Paul Pawlenty. Pawlenty had a drinking problem and occasionally threw things around the apartment when he drank to excess. On December 16, 1979, appellant Oscar W. Johnson and several other firefighters responded to a fire at Miller’s duplex on Oliver Avenue. Appellant was a captain who had been with the fire department since 1953. Smoke was visible when they arrived at the building, and bystanders warned that a man was inside. Appellant instructed firefighter Timothy Olson to start laying the hose line and then entered Pawlenty’s apart ment where visibility was impaired by smoke. After taking a few steps forward, appellant fell through an uncovered heating duct in the floor and landed on top of a furnace. The grate which covered the furnace had been removed before the fire, presumably by Pawlenty. The opening covered by the grate is about 36 inches square. Respondent testified that he knew that Pawlenty had on occasion removed the grate from the furnace duct in the floor, but he was unaware that the grate was not in place on the day of the fire. As a result of his fall, appellant burned his left hand and separated his right shoulder. Appellant was unable to work for about ten weeks after the injury. His doctor testified at trial that he was not permanently injured as a result of th”
    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.