Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 808 F.2d 676 - Johnson v. Ashby

Johnson v. Ashby’s Empirical Analysis

808 F.2d 676 · 1987

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
7
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably O'Dell v. Hercules Inc. (1990), Amarel

33 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

3101987199020002010decided

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 Mann v. Koob · Dothard v. Rawlinson · McI Communications Corporation McI v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company · American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. MCI Communications Corp. · Flaminio v. Honda Motor Co.

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

  1. “'prevent undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[the use of the plain-error exception to the normal rules of appellate practice must be confined to the most compelling cases, especially in civil, as opposed to criminal, litigation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an abuse of the trial court's discretion to exclude probative, non-cumulative evidence simply because its introduction will cause delay.”
    2 later decisions 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.