Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 47 MINN 575 - Johnson v. Harrison

Johnson v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis

1891

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 109 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Hunt v. Nevada State Bank (1969), Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. State (1898)

3 federal appellate · 109 state decisions — followed in 24 states

15018911900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Inhabitants of the Township of Montclair County of Essex v. Ramsdell

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

  1. “[Sjubject . . . is to be given a broad and extended meaning, so as to allow the legislature full scope to include in one act all matters having a logical or natural connection. To constitute duplicity of subject, an act must embrace two or more dissimilar and discordant subjects that by no fair intendment can be considered as having any legitimate connection with or relation to each other. All that is necessary is that the act should embrace some one general subject: and by this is meant, merely, that all matters treated of should fall under some one general idea, be so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding, as to be parts of, or germane to, one general subject.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “To prevent surprise and fraud upon the people and the legislature by including provisions in a bill whose title gives no intimation of the nature of the proposed legislation or of the interests likely to be affected by its becoming a law[.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “by which a number of different and disconnected subjects are united in one bill,”
    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.