Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
61 F.2d 934 · 1932
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Co. (1933), Nguyen v. United States (2003)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1 (Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1992)
Relies on Simon v. Southern Railway Co. · St. Clair v. Cox · Ball v. United States · Washingtonsouthern Nav Co v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co · State v. Carroll
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Though we are used to regard questions of jurisdiction as sharp and clear, the fact is otherwise. All valid rules of law are imperative; their violation is generally, though not always, a wrong for which in some form or other relief is usually open, if they result in substantial damage. But for obvious practical reasons not all errors go so far to the root as to make the whole proceeding a complete nullity; else the trouble and expense of litigation would go for nothing and contro versy never end. Therefore, the law will not scrutinize too nicely a judge’s warrant of authority; he may indeed have so little color of office as to stand like a mere interloper, but that is not ordinarily true, if, being duly qualified as a judge, some effort has been made to conform with the formal conditions on which his particular powers depend. The Supreme Court has several times refused to treat such conditions as essential to the validity of his acts. Ball v. United States, 140 U.S. 118 , 11 S.Ct. 761 , 35 L.Ed. 377 ; McDowell v. United States, 159 U.S. 596 , 16 S.Ct. 111 , 40 L.Ed. 271 ; Ex Parte Ward, 173 U.S. 452 , 19 S.Ct. 459 , 43 L.Ed. 765 . * * * It is not wholly clear how far the conditions upon a judge’s qualifications may be absent and his acts still be immune from collateral attack. We have not that question before us; we mention the doctrine merely as showing the general indisposition of the law to demand of suitors any inquiry into the title of judges to their office, or into t”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The agreed distribution of business ... is merely to promote accord and avoid conflict; it may be imperative, so far as it extends, but it does not go to the essence of the judge’s power. . . . [Cjompliance with every rule of court is not essential to the judge’s jurisdiction, nor may his acts be ignored if they do not conform to all. There is a way to correct such errors which must be followed! Yet unless rules for the distribution of business stand on a different footing from rules in general, the decrees vacated were not the empty words of a mere intruder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“would have become moot and would not survive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.