Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Brelje’s Empirical Analysis
701 F.2d 1201 · 1983
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988), Rakovich v. Wade (1988)
41 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Mathews v. Eldridge · Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish · Gerstein v. Pugh
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] recipient of services shall be provided with adequate and humane care and services in the least restrictive environment....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““The plaintiffs’ freedom of movement *** is limited and the defendants have not justified this restriction in terms of legitimate interests in treatment and security; therefore, in confining the plaintiffs indoors, we are not ‘certain that professional judgment in fact was exercised.’ ” Johnson, 701 F.2d at 1209, quoting Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321 , 73 L. Ed. 2d at 41 , 102 S. Ct. at 2461 .”
1 later decision 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.