Driver v. Hinnant’s Empirical Analysis
356 F.2d 761 · 1966
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Powell v. Texas (1968), United States v. Barker (1975)
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 15 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
Relies on Morissette v. United States · Robinson v. State of California · State of Louisiana Francis v. Resweber · State v. Driver
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * our excusal of the chronic alcoholic from criminal prosecution is confined exclusively to those acts on his part which are compulsive as symptomatic of the disease. With respect to other behavior — not characteristic of confirmed chronic alcoholism — he would be judged as would any person not so afflicted.” [Emphasis added.]”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is unlikely that any State at this moment in history would attempt to make it a criminal offense for a person to be mentally ill, or a leper, or to be afflicted with a venereal disease. A State might determine that the general health and welfare require that the victims of these and other human afflictions be dealt with by compulsory treatment, involving quarantine, confinement, or sequestration. But, in the light of contemporary human knowledge, a law which made a criminal offense of such a disease would doubtless be universally thought to be an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 , 91 L.Ed. 422 , 67 S.Ct. 374 . Robinson v. California, supra 370 U.S., at 666 , 82 S.Ct., at 1420 , 8 L.Ed.2d, at 763 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(3)states that “alcoholic” means a person who chronically and habitually uses alcoholic bever ages to the extent that he loses the power of self-control with respect to the nse of alcoholic beverages; or a person who chronically and habitually uses alcoholic beverages to the extent that he becomes a menace to the public morals, health, safety or welfare.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vick v. State
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.