Doe v. Stincer’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.3d 879 · 1999
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink (2003), Florida State Conference of the National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Browning (2008)
12 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) ha[s] the authority to— (B) pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State; and (C) pursue administrative, legal, and other remedies on behalf of an individual who (i) was a[n] individual with a mental illness; and (ii) is a resident of the State, but only with respect to matters which occur within 90 days after the date of discharge of such individual from a facility providing care or treatment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[U]nder Article III's established doctrines of representational standing, we have never held that a party suing as a representative must specifically name the individual on whose behalf the suit is brought and we decline to create such a requirement....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Further, under PAMII, individuals with mental illness possess “the indicia of membership in an organization.” In PAMII, Congress directed that multimember governing boards of protection and advocacy organizations such as the Advocacy Center must be composed of “members who broadly represent or are knowledgeable about the needs of clients served by the system” and must “include individuals who have received or are receiving mental health services and family members of such individuals.” 42 U.S.C. § 10805 (c)(1)(B); see also 42 C.F.R. § 51.22 (b)(2). Moreover, protection and advocacy organizations must have advisory councils, sixty percent of whose membership as well as the chair of the council must be “comprised of individuals who have received or are receiving mental health services or who are family members of such individuals.” § 10805(a)(6)(B), (C); 42 C.F.R. § 51.23(b)(1), (2). Additionally, PAMII provides that a protection and advocacy organization must afford the public with an opportunity to comment on the priorities and activities of the protection and advocacy system and must establish a grievance procedure for clients and prospective clients “to assure that individuals with mental illness have full access to the services of the system” and “that the eligible system is operating in compliance with [PAMII].” § 10805(a)(8), (9); 42 C.F.R. §§ 51.24 , 51.25.”
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.