Johnson v. Hubbard’s Empirical Analysis
698 F.2d 286 · 1983
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Cookish v. Cunningham (1986), United States Marshals Service v. Means (1984)
46 federal appellate · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1825 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Roe v. Wade · United States v. Sherwood · Brown v. Allen · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]itnesses shall attend as in other cases.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Tedder v. Odel · Newson v. Harrison“[w]itness fees clearly fall in the category of items such as trial transcripts, depositions, and other documents, which the constitution does not require a court, or in practical terms, the federal government, to pay for at the request of the indigent party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service of a subpena [sic] issued in behalf of the United States ... or ... on behalf of a party, authorized to proceed in forma pauperis,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.