285 Ill. App. 3d 405 - People v. Branning’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2012
23 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · United States v. Salerno · Armstrong v. Manzo · Addington v. Texas · Sosna v. Iowa
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"At a minimum, however, the ward must receive a hearing at which he will be allowed to appear, present witnesses on his own behalf[,] and cross-examine witnesses against him. He must receive competent assistance at this hearing, although due process does not require that the assistant be a lawyer. [Citation.] The ward must be shown to be unable to make a reasoned decision for himself about the treatment and the treatment must be shown to be in his best interest, * * * [citation] * * * includ[ing] a requirement that the treatment be the least restrictive alternative. The proof must at least be by clear and convincing evidence. [Citation.] The ward is also entitled to an independent psychiatric examination * * *. The value of an independent examination is clearit provides a check on the judgment of the treating psychiatrist." Branning, 285 Ill.App.3d at 417 , 220 Ill.Dec. 920 , 674 N.E.2d at 472 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"[T]the second paragraph of section 2-110, on its face, violates the due process clauses of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1) and the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 2) because it permits invasion of the liberty interests of wards in choosing whether to undergo the treatment provided without providing adequate safeguards." Branning, 285 Ill.App.3d at 408 , 220 Ill.Dec. 920 , 674 N.E.2d at 466 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"If the recipient is a minor or is under guardianship, such recipient's parent or guardian is authorized, only with the approval of the court, to provide informed consent for participation of the ward in any such services which the guardian deems to be in the best interests of the ward." 405 ILCS 5/2-110 (West 1996).”
2 later decisions 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.