925 F. Supp. 244 - Johnson v. Cullen’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2019
8 district ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Wilson v. Garcia · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The reason for [ Rule 8(c) ] is to put plaintiff on notice, well in advance of trial, that a defendant intends to pursue a defense that is in the nature of an avoidance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“sufficient time, and [the plaintiff] was not prejudiced in its ability to respond.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.