Johnson v. Alldredge’s Empirical Analysis
488 F.2d 820 · 1973
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently October 2002 · most notably Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp. (1974), United States v. Connolly (1983)
78 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Pierson v. Ray · Tenney v. Brandhove · Barr v. Matteo · District of Columbia v. Carter · Bradley v. Fisher
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“called upon not to answer the question certified but to decide an appeal.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Consolidated Express, Inc. v. New York Shipping Association, Inc., Sea-Land Services, Inc., Seatrain Lines Inc., International Longshoremen's Association, Afl-Cio, International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., John M. McGrath Corp., Pittston Stevedoring Corp., United Terminals Corp., Universal Maritime Services Corp. Twin Express, Inc. v. New York Shipping Association, Inc., Sea-Land Service, Inc., International Longshoremen's Association, Afl-Cio, International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., John M. McGrath Corp., Pittston Stevedoring Corp., United Terminals Corp., Universal Maritime Services Corp · Consolidated Express, Inc. v. New York Shipping Ass'n“functions. It reflects the purpose for which immunity is granted to executive, as well as judicial and legislative, officers: to ensure that important decisions are made free from the fear of personal liability or harassing suits. 11 The second requirement, also noted in Barr, is that the allegedly wrongful acts must have been”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Araujo v. Welch
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.