Lessard v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 14 district · 124 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 214 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably Schmidt v. Lessard (1974), 14 Cal. 3d 306 - People v. Burnick (1975)
31 federal appellate · 14 district · 124 state decisions — followed in 29 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Younger v. Harris · Gault · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson
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 214 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. The Court did not directly address itself to the degree of dangerousness that is constitutionally required before a person may be involuntarily deprived of liberty. However, its approval of a requirement that the potential for doing harm be “great enough to justify such a massive curtailment of liberty” implies a balancing test in which the state must bear the burden of proving that there is an extreme likelihood that if the person is not confined he will do immediate harm to himself or others. Although attempts to predict future conduct are always difficult, and confinement based upon such a prediction must always be viewed with suspicion, we believe civil confinement can be justified in some cases if the proper burden of proof is satisfied and dangerousness is based upon a finding of a recent overt act, attempt or threat to do substantial harm to oneself or another.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“great enough to justify such a massive curtailment of liberty”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), the Supreme Court held that proof beyond a reasonable doubt was required to prove every fact necessary in juvenile delinquency proceedings, noting that “extreme caution in factfinding,” id. at 365 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , is necessary because of “the possibility that [the individual] may lose his liberty upon conviction and because of the certainty that he would be stigmatized by the conviction.” Id. at 363 , 90 S.Ct. at 1072 .... The Winship Court reached its conclusion despite its findings that an adjudication of delinquency “does not deprive the child of his civil rights, and that juvenile proceedings are confidential.” Id. at 366 , 90 S.Ct. at 1074 . The argument for a stringent standard of proof is more compelling in the case of a civil commitment in which an individual will be deprived of basic civil rights and be certainly stigmatized by the lack of confidentiality of the adjudication. We therefore hold that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all facts necessary to show that an individual is mentally ill and dangerous.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.