Johnson v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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

1. “[L]osing litigants are constitutionally vested with a right of appeal and appellate courts are constitutionally vested with jurisdiction. Strictly speaking, the notice of appeal is not jurisdictional. It is a procedural device prescribed by the rules of the court by which a litigant may invoke the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court as constitutionally delegated. This is why CR 73.02(2) describes automatic dismissal as the penalty for failure of a party to file a timely notice of appeal, but not as a lack of jurisdiction. If it were otherwise, the rules could not be changed except by constitutional amendment. This Court has the power to deny or dismiss an appeal if the rules are not followed, based on its own rules, but no power to create or deny jurisdiction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Excel Energy, Inc. v. Commonwealth Institutional Securities, Inc.

2. “[Djespite the premature nature of these notices, they nonetheless “put appellees on notice of the intent to appeal before expiration of the thirty day time limit in CR 73.02(l)(a), and thus served the essential purpose of the rule.” Furthermore, this Court noted that the particular circumstances of the Johnson case— where a litigant could have mistakenly believed that a final judgment had been entered and where the trial court’s non-final order would be appealable if followed by the formal entry of judgment — suggested that it would not be unreasonable to file a notice of appeal prematurely.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. James v. James

3. “these movants’ [CR 73.02] notices of appeal were not fatally defective simply because they were filed before the trial court ruled on a [CR 59] post-judgment motion made by other parties. The notices of appeal filed forthwith relate forward to the time when final judgment was entered disposing of post-judgment motions made by others. There is no rule, and no sound judicial policy, forbidding such construction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Board of Regents of Western Kentucky University v. Clark