Martarella v. Kelley’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 8 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently November 2002 · most notably Doe ex rel. Doe v. New York City Department of Social Services (1981), 14 Cal. 3d 338 - People v. Feagley (1975)
22 federal appellate · 8 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 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. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Gault · Pierson v. Ray · Kent v. United States
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Tjhere can be no doubt that the right to treatment, generally, for those held in non-criminal custody (whether based on due process, equal protection or the Eighth Amendment, or a combination of them) has by now been recognized by the Supreme Court, the lower federal courts and the courts of New York.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘A new concept of substantive due process is evolving in the theraputic realm. This concept is founded upon a recognition of the concurrency between the state’s exercise of sanctioning power and its assumption of the duties of social responsibility. Its implication is that effective treatment must be the quid pro quo for society’s right to exercise its parens patriae controls. Whether specifically recognized by statutory enactment or im-plicity derived from the constitutional requirements of due process, the right to treatment exists.’ ” Id. at 600 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While we are concerned only with procedure before the juvenile court in this case, it should be noted that to the extent that the special procedures for juveniles are thought to be justified by the special consideration and treatment afforded them, there is reason to doubt that juveniles always receive the benefits of such a quid pro quo. ... In fact, some courts have recently indicated that appropriate treatment is essential to the validity of juvenile custody, and therefore that a juvenile may challenge the validity of his custody on the ground that he is not in fact receiving any special treatment.”
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.