Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 897 F.2d 128 - Johnson v. Orr

Johnson v. Orr’s Empirical Analysis

897 F.2d 128 · 1990

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2012

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

30199020002010decided

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. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · City of Riverside v. Rivera · White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKey

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

  1. “Rule 54(b) is designed to facilitate the entry of judgments upon one or more but fewer than all the claims or as to one or more but fewer than all the parties in an action involving more than one claim or party. It was adopted because of the potential seope and complexity of civil actions under the federal rules, given their extensive provisions for the liberal joinder of claims and parties. The basic purpose of Rule 54(b) is to avoid the possible injustice of a delay in entering judgment on a dis-tinetly separate claim or as to fewer than all of the parties until the final adjudication of the entire case by making an immediate appeal available.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Generally speaking, an order unconditionally fixing fees, docketed after the docketing of the final merits judgment, is a separate final judgment, at least where the merits judgment resolved all of the claims before the district court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Assuredly, the very purpose served by a certification of finality suggests the importance of making final all of its collateral consequences.”
    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.