United States v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
45 F.3d 837 · 1995
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Rusu v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2002), United States v. Masciandaro (2011)
22 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4245 · 18 U.S.C. § 4246 · 18 U.S.C. § 4247 · 28 U.S.C. § 113
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Richardson v. Perales · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Addington v. Texas · Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. Doe
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] hearing at which evidence is presented and the respondent is provided a chance to be heard and to present documentary evidence as well as witnesses; the right to confront and to eross-exam- ine government witnesses at the hearing, except upon a showing of good cause; an independent decisionmaker; a written, reasoned decision; the availability of an independent advisor, not necessarily an attorney; and effective and timely notice of the pendency of the hearing and of all these rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he inquiry involved in determining whether or not to transfer an inmate to a mental hospital for treatment involves a question that is essentially medical.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Virginia Court, in addressing the delegation of legislative power, has addressed the importance of not approving shortcuts on account of administrative convenience, and we should heed that admonition. In Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 , 154 S.E. 579, 584 (1930), the Court stated: It is a fundamental principle of our system of government that the rights of man are to be determined by the law itself, and not by the let or leave of administrative officers or bureaus. This principal ought not to be surrendered for convenience or in effect nullified for the sake of expediency.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.