Jackson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
950 F.2d 263 · 1992
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Piotrowski v. City of Houston (2001), Mark Anthony Harris Michael Hegmann Janet Boyd Rose James (1999)
28 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Owens v. Okure · Hardin v. Straub · Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona · Lavellee v. Listi
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Texas courts have held that as a general rule, where a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by the pendency of legal proceedings, the time during which he is thus prevented should not be counted against him in determining whether limitations have barred his right.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[HJolding in abeyance a federal complaint by a Texas litigant to avoid limitations problems while state remedies are exhausted harbors potential difficulties. Texas has developed a “rule of habeas abstention,” that is, whenever a petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus in state court, if the state court determines that a federal habeas proceeding concerning the “same matter” or seeking the same relief is presently pending, the state court may not consider the merits of the petition but must dismiss it. As a result of this rule, which appears to continue to be valid law in Texas, a federal district court might hold a case in abeyance to avoid the passage of the limitations period, and instruct the litigant to return to Texas state court to exhaust state remedies, only to have the litigant find that he cannot proceed in state court because of the federal case held in abeyance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Soffar
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.