Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
780 F.2d 902 · 1986
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena (1989), Floyd v. Laws (1991)
28 federal appellate · 7 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. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 28 U.S.C. § 2674
Relies on Roe v. Wade · Palmer v. Hoffman · United States v. Thevis · 349 So. 2d 1181 - Bould v. Touchette · United States v. Harue Hayashi
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although excessiveness may be tested by comparing the verdict to those damage awards determined not to be excessive in similar cases, we have been unable to find any reported case in Florida with an award this high. Perhaps some research or compilation of similar cases tried in Florida is available that could be submitted to the court and could be made a part of the record to furnish a basis for the amount that should ultimately be awarded.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In cases where damages for mental pain and suffering are allowed, it must bear some reasonable relation to the facts, the status of the parties, the amount allowed as compensatory damages, and the philosophy and general trend of decisions effecting such cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here, as here, damages are set by the judge instead of a jury, issues raised during trial and ruled on by the trial court need not be raised again in a motion for new trial in order to preserve them for review on appeal.”
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.