Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 F.2d 940 - Johnson v. United States

Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

87 F.2d 940 · 1937

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
April 2000
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2000

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

3019371940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Schillinger v. United States · United States v. Michel · McDonald v. Hovey · Price v. United States & Osage Indians · Blamberg Bros. v. United States

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

  1. “The general policy of the law is that causes of action ought to be tried in courts before the evidence is lost and while memory is fresh. It would be strangely lacking in common sense to compel an infant to wait helpless and without possibility of redress for his grievances during the period between the expiration of the limitation barring actions by those of full age and of sound mind and the time of reaching his majority. Such a meaning would not be adopted unless compelled by statutory language of unmistakable import. The reasonable construction of the section is that the action may be maintained by the minor at any time before it is finally barred. That is the conclusion reach by all courts, so far as we are aware, where the question has been raised.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]t has .been generally held under such statutes that the insane person may maintain an action by his [conservator] at any time during the continuance of his disability [within the times limited by the statute].”
    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.