Johnson v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
788 F.2d 1319 · 1986
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Stevens v. Redwing (1998), Abdullah v. Gunter (1991)
45 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Hutto v. Finney · Stafford v. Oklahoma · Kirchberg v. Feenstra · Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Lane · Patterson v. Kelley“The relevant criteria for determining whether counsel should be appointed include the factual complexity of the issues, the ability of the indigent person to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent person to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Although factual complexity is certainly a relevant factor for a district court to consider in determining an indigent litigant’s need for appointment of counsel, it is not the only factor. * * * We believe that in addition to factual complexity, the district court should also consider the ability of an indigent to investigate the facts, * * * the existence of conflicting testimony, * * * the ability of an indigent to present his claim, * * * and the complexity of the legal issues. * * * These factors are “by no means an exclusive checklist,” * * * and the weight to be given any one factor will vary with the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Lane
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.