Dowdell’s Empirical Analysis
1897
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably Smith v. Smith (1950), Barry v. Hall (1938)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Dent v. State of West Virginia · Missouri v. Lewis · Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States · Walker v. Sauvinet
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The only ground for the petitioner’s discharge which is set forth in the petition or relied on in argument is that the provisions of statute under which he was committed are unconstitutional as being in violation of article 12 of the Declaration of Rights and of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The former provides that no subject shall be deprived of his liberty but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; the latter that no state shall deprive any person of liberty without due process of law. So far as the Declaration of Rights is concerned, it has been twice determined that a person who is in fact, insane is not entitled to be discharged from a hospital on habeas corpus, provided the court is satisfied that the restraint and treatment there will be beneficial to him. In re Oakes, (1845) 8 Law Rep. 122 ; Denny v. Tyler, 3 Allen [Mass.] 225. In both of these cases the person was committed without any previous hearing, and without the order of the judge. It was held that the provision of the Declaration of Rights is not of universal application, and that it does not entitle an insane person to be set at liberty, if restraint is proper under the circumstances of the particular case. In the present case it must be assumed, from the petition, report, and argument, that the petitioner is in fact insane, and that the restraint and treatment of the hospital are beneficial to him. The case therefore falls directly within the decisions ci”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Dagley““The Legislature, as parens patrise, may, to some extent, make provision for the care of those who are unable to take proper care of themselves, as in the case of insane persons and neglected children.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hoadly v. Chase
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.