Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 15 Cal. 3d 183 - In Re Michael E.

15 Cal. 3d 183 - In Re Michael E.’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Carey Warden v. Saffold (2002), 16 Cal. 3d 226 - Ford v. Arthur N. (1976)

7 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

34019751980199020002010decided

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

Relies on 39 Cal. App. 3d 205 - In Re LL · In re M. J. E.

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

  1. ““(a) To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities; “(b) To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism; “(c) To guarantee and protect public safety; “(d) To safeguard individual rights through judicial review; “(e) To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons; “(f) To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]lthough a minor may not be legally responsible to provide for his [or her] basic personal needs, or may suffer disabilities other than a mental disorder which preclude him [or her] from so providing, the definition [found in section 5008, subdivision (h)(1)(A) ] is nevertheless applicable. A minor is 'gravely disabled' within the meaning of section 5008, subdivision (h)(1), when the trier of fact, on expert and other testimony, finds that disregarding other disabilities, if any, the minor, because of the further disability of a mental disorder, would be unable to provide for his [or her] basic personal needs.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(b) In the case of a minor person, the application shall be made by his parents, or by the parent, guardian or other person entitled to his custody to any of such mental hospitals as may be designated by the Director of Health to admit minors on voluntary applications....”
    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.