What precedent or legal doctrines did the Katie Johnson decision rely on?

1. What the record actually shows: a filed claim, not a published doctrinal ruling

Court docket entries and contemporaneous reporting indicate the matter existed as a federal filing in 2016 but ended without a published merits opinion resolving legal doctrines or establishing precedent (case 5:16‑cv‑00797) ^{[3] [4]}. Fact‑checking outlets and legal summaries say the complaint was filed, refiled and then dropped or closed in November 2016; those summaries explicitly conclude the case ended with no settlement and no ongoing litigation that would produce precedent ^{[2] [5]}.

2. Why there’s no clear “precedent” to cite

Because the case was closed and no reported judicial opinion issued on the merits, there is no transcriptable holding that applied or extended established legal doctrines referenced in later reporting (available sources do not mention a court opinion articulating reliance on specific precedents). Multiple fact‑checking summaries state the suit “ended in 2016” and was “dropped” or “closed,” meaning it did not generate published federal appellate or district court law that could operate as precedent ^{[2] [1]}.

3. How news coverage framed the legal posture

News outlets and summaries treat Katie Johnson’s filing as one among several allegations linked to Epstein and high‑profile defendants; they focus on allegations, the pseudonymous plaintiff, and the procedural closure rather than doctrine. For example, international coverage recounts the accusation and procedural filing but does not report any judge’s written opinion adopting or applying particular legal doctrines from existing case law ^{[6] [1]}.

4. What secondary sources say about why the suit ended

Independent fact‑checks and legal explainers say the plaintiff used a pseudonym, faced safety and intimidation concerns, and ultimately abandoned the suit; those accounts frame the closure as pragmatic and procedural rather than the result of a dispositive merits ruling that would cite doctrine ^{[2] [5]}. Those sources note the lack of settlement and the absence of subsequent litigation that could crystalize precedent ^[2].

5. Implications for readers asking about “legal doctrines”

If your question seeks which doctrines—statute of limitations, federal question jurisdiction, standing, or immunity—were applied in a binding opinion, the available reporting and docket information do not supply that material: no published opinion and therefore no doctrinal analysis is available in current sources (available sources do not mention application of specific doctrines in a written decision) ^{[3] [2] [4]}.

6. Paths to follow if you need doctrinal answers

To identify doctrines that would typically arise in such claims, researchers should obtain the full docketed filings and any judge’s minute orders or rulings from the Central District of California file (case no. 5:16‑cv‑00797) or the archived docket entries; the docket listings and document repositories referenced online are the proper next step ^{[3] [4]}. Sources that repost the complaint text exist online, but secondary summaries caution that reposts and viral claims have sometimes mischaracterized procedural posture ^{[7] [2]}.

7. What reporters and fact‑checkers warn about

Multiple outlets and fact‑checkers emphasize that viral claims about later settlements or revived litigation are false and that as of their reporting the case had not produced legal precedent or an active claim — readers should treat later social‑media assertions with skepticism and consult the official docket for confirmation ^{[2] [1]}.

Limitations: coverage and docket records in the provided sources end at procedural closure and do not include a published merits opinion. If you want, I can pull specific docket entries or the complaint text referenced by archives and reposts so we can examine the pleadings for the sorts of legal claims asserted ^{[7] [4]}.