Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 312 FSUPP 822 - Cook v. Ciccone

Cook v. Ciccone’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 1982
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 18 U.S.C. § 4246 · 18 U.S.C. § 4247 · 18 U.S.C. § 4248

Relies on 98 F. Supp. 670 - Higgins v. McGrath · 192 F. Supp. 156 - Martin v. Settle · 306 F. Supp. 4 - United States v. Jackson · Royal v. Settle · Craig v. Steele

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

  1. ““Thus, where an unconvicted person is confined in federal custody under 18 U.S.C. § 4244 or § 4246, and it is clear that his lack of competency to stand trial is permanent, or in view of the totality of the circumstances such incompetency and resultant confinement has existed for an unreasonable period of time and is not likely to immediately change to permit his trial, such person should be ultimately transferred to the appropriate state authorities for adequate control and treatment. In the event that state authorities will not accept the accused, consideration must be given to his outright release from federal custody. United States v. Jackson supra [(N.D. Cal.) 306 F.Supp. 4 ]. Such consideration is dictated by the inherent unfairness and substantial injustice in keeping an unconvicted person in federal custody to await trial where it is plainly evident that his mental condition will not permit trial within a reasonable time.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If the accused’s mental disability appears not to be a transitory condition, but in all likelihood he will, because of insanity, never be brought to trial, it would seem that as a general rule the federal government should not assume responsibility for his hospitalization merely because he has been accused (but not convicted) of a federal crime. Normally such a person should be turned over to the state of his domicile to be confined in a state hospital if hospitalization is called for.” (Emphasis added.)”
    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.