In Re Boyd’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1999 · most notably Washington v. Harper (1990), Frendak v. United States (1979)
2 district · 22 state decisions
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 Roe v. Wade · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette · County of Los Angeles v. Davis
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he court, as surrogate for the incompetent, is to determine as best it can what choice [the] individual, if competent, would make with respect to medical procedures.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Whenever possible it is better for the judge to make a first-hand appraisal of the patient’s personal desires and ability for rational choice. In this way the court can always know, to the extent possible, that the judgment is that of the individual concerned and not that of those who believe, however well-intentioned, that they speak for the person whose life is in the balance. Thus, where the patient is comatose, or suffering impairment of capacity for choice, it may be better to give weight to the known instinct for survival which can, in a critical situation, alter previously held convictions. In such cases it cannot be determined with certainty that a deliberate and intelligent •choice has been made. Id. at 374-75 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) when an individual prior to incompetence, has objected, absolutely, to medical care on religious grounds, (b) the evidence demonstrates a strong adherence to the tenets of that faith, and (c) there is no countervailing evidence of vacillation, the court should conclude that the individual would reject medical treatment. In other, less clear situations, the court should make the putative decision by looking at the nature, intensity, and longevity of the patient’s objection to medical care, the intrusiveness and side effects of the proposed treatment, and the likelihood of cure or improvement with or without such treatment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Bryant
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.