Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 457 U.S. 291 - Mills v. Rogers

Mills v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

518
cited by 518 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
27
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

146 federal appellate · 78 district · 157 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 518 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission (1983), Washington v. Harper (1990)

146 federal appellate · 78 district · 157 state decisions — followed in 27 states

263019821990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedRogers v. Okin (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Bell v. Wolfish · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Roe v. Wade · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority

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

  1. “Where a State creates liberty interests broader than those protected directly by the Federal Constitution, the procedures mandated to protect the federal substantive interests ... might fail to determine the actual procedural rights and duties of persons within the State. Because state-created liberty interests are entitled to the protection of the federal Due Process Clause, the full scope of a patient’s due process rights may depend in part on the substantive liberty interests created by state as well as federal law. Moreover, a State may confer procedural protections of liberty interests that extend beyond those minimally required by the Constitution of the United States. If a State does so, the minimal requirements of the Federal Constitution would not be controlling, and would not need to be identified in order to determine the legal rights and duties of persons within that State.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he substantive issue involves a definition of th[e] protected constitutional interest, as well as identification of the conditions under which competing state interests might outweigh it. The procedural issue concerns the minimum procedures required by the Constitution for determining that the individual's liberty interest actually is outweighed in a particular instance.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “As do the parties, we assume for purposes of this discussion that involuntarily committed mental patients do retain liberty interests protected directly by the Constitution, cf. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 , 45 L.Ed.2d 396 , 95 S.Ct. 2486 (1975), and that these interests are implicated by the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs. Only “assuming” the existence of such interests, we of course intimate no view as to the weight of such interests in comparison with possible countervailing state interests.”
    2 later decisions 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.