Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 577 P.2d 706 - Johnson v. State

Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2009

16 state decisions

601978198019902000decided

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 Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKey · Panichella v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Campbell v. Westmoreland Farm, Inc. · Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchorage

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

  1. “[t]he finding should not be made simply because counsel request it. There should be some danger of actual hardship caused by delay in entry of final judgment. The court should weigh the general policy against piecemeal appeals against the reasons advanced in favor of the proposed finding.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “There are two important limitations on the use of Rule 54(b). The first is that there must be a final decision on at least one claim or as to the entire interest of at least one party. The single judicial unit may be subdivided no further than that. Second, there must be a good reason for using Rule 54(b).”
    2 later decisions 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.