Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 68 F.2d 588 - Johnson v. United States

Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

68 F.2d 588 · 1934

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
August 1977
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1977

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

2019341940195019601970decided

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 Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Mayor v. Cooper · Hughes v. United States · Gaines v. . City of New York · Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. Cannon

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

  1. ““In the case of Smith v. McNeal, 109 U.S. 426 , 3 S.Ct. 319, 320 , 27 L.Ed. 986 , cited in the opinion in the Gaines Case [Gaines v. City of New York, 215 N.Y. 533 , 109 N.E. 594 , L.R.A.1917C, 203, Ann. Cas.1916A, 259], the first suit filed by the plaintiffs in error had been dismissed for a defect in the- pleading, which was supplied in a second suit, but the second suit was held barred by limitations. The plaintiffs in error relied upon a saving statute of the state of Tennessee, which provides that, ‘If 'the action is commenced within the time limited, but the judgment or decree is rendered against the plaintiff upon any ground not concluding his right of action, or Where the judgment or decree is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and is arrested, or reversed- on appeal, the plaintiff or his representatives and privies, may * * * commence a new action within one year after the reversal or arrest.’ In reversing the case, the court said: “ ‘The question of law upon which the parties are at issue is whether the judgment rendered February 24,. 1877, by'which the suit begun December 31, 1873, was dismissed, the dismissal being on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the cause of action set .out in the declaration, falls within the saving of this section as being rendered on a ground not concluding the plaintiffs’ right of action. “ ‘It is well settled that, the judgment of a court dismissing a suit for want of jurisdiction does not conclude the plaintiffs’ right ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If suit is seasonably begun and fails for defect in process, or for other reasons not affecting the merits, a new action, if one lies, may be brought within a year though the period of limitations has elapsed.””
    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.