Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 387 F.2d 193 - Cameron v. Mullen

Cameron v. Mullen’s Empirical Analysis

387 F.2d 193 · 1967

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
February 1993
most recently cited

62 federal appellate · 7 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1993 · most notably Jackson v. Indiana (1972), Bolton v. Harris (1968)

62 federal appellate · 7 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 11 states

5901967197019801990decided

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 Fay v. Noia · Kent v. United States · Jones v. Cunningham · Cohens v. Virginia · Aptheker v. Secretary of State

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

  1. “while prior criminal conduct is relevant to the determination whether a person is mentally ill and dangerous, it cannot justify denial of procedural safeguards for that determination.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “See, e. g., Sen. Rep. No. 1170, H. R. Rep. No. 892, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955), at p. 13: `The Committee is of the opinion that the public is entitled to know that, in every case where a person has committed a crime as a result of a mental disease or defect, such person shall be given a period of hospitalization and treatment to guard against imminent recurrence of some criminal act by that person.' (Emphasis in original.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If any person tried upon an indictment or information for an offense raises the defense of insanity and is acquitted solely on the ground that he was insane at the time of its commission, he shall be committed to a hospital for the mentally ill until such time as he is eligible for release pursuant to this subsection or subsection (e).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.