Veiga v. McGee’s Empirical Analysis
26 F.3d 1206 · 1994
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Barna, Strahan v. Coxe (1997)
15 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Brown v. Texas · Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Chapter 111B replaced prior laws which provided for criminal punishment of public inebriants. In place of punishment, Chapter 111B provides for the treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics and evidences a concern for the health and safety of persons incapacitated by the effects of alcohol. The law accomplishes two objectives. First, Chapter 111B attempts to get intoxicated individuals who engage in disorderly conduct off the streets, protecting the public until they sober up -- a goal previously accomplished by criminal statutes. Second, Chapter 111B looks out for the health and safety of those individuals, attempting to protect incapacitated persons from themselves. Despite its non-penal objectives, the effect of Chapter 111B is, nevertheless, to deprive the allegedly incapacitated person of his or her liberty, by permitting detention at a police station.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the absence of clear legislative intent, we will not adopt an interpretation of a statute that would render it constitutionally suspect.”). The Court has serious concerns about whether a restitution order of the sort the Victims propose — one not limited to losses proximately caused by the offense of conviction — would withstand constitutional scrutiny. The Eighth Amendment provides:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person who is incapacitated may be assisted by a police officer with or without his consent to his residence, to a facility or to a police station.”
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.