Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 Ky. 84 - Johnson v. Clem

Johnson v. Clem’s Empirical Analysis

1884

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
May 1969
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1969

7 state decisions

40188418901900191019201930194019501960decided

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.

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

  1. ““This, it seems to us, is the meaning of the provision of the Code on this subject, and when it provides that, when either party requires it, the judge may exclude from the court room any witness, it is a matter addressed to his discretion. “The word require means simply the right of the party to make the motion to ask for the exclusion of the witness, and is not a demand that the court is compelled to comply with.””
    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.