Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 575 NE2D 1077 - Johnson v. Johnson

Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2010

8 state decisions

50199120002010decided

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 Anderson v. Anderson · Martin v. Roberts · Smith v. Smith · 166 Ind. App. 329 - Rayburn v. Eisen

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

  1. “The prescribed time for T.R. [76(C) ], however, does not commence running “after the sendee of a notice or other paper” upon a party. Rather, a party must file a motion for change of venue “not later than ten [10] days after the issues are first closed on the merits,” not within ten days of the service of an answer. It is the filing of the answer which triggers the running of the ten day rule and not notice thereof.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In any action except criminal no change of judge or change of venue from the county shall be granted except within the time herein provided. Any such application for change of judge (or change of venue) shall be filed not later than ten [10] days after the issues are first closed on the merits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “clarification and enforcement of a dissolution decree [was] within the exclusive jurisdiction of the issuing court, and that Ruth's quiet title action [was] an impermissible collateral attack on the dissolution decree.”
    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.