In re M.C.’s Empirical Analysis
2019
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Addington v. Texas · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California for County of Riverside · Britt v. North Carolina · Humphrey v. Cady · Mayer v. City of Chicago
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is well established that the right to a record of sufficient completeness 'does not translate automatically into a complete verbatim transcript.' " Matter of M.C. , 481 Mass. 336 , 345, 115 N.E.3d 546 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Imbert , 479 Mass. 575 , 578, 97 N.E.3d 335 (2018). "[E]ven if a [party] asserts an appellate claim which requires recourse to a transcript, he is not necessarily entitled to the full transcript.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the context of involuntary hospitalization, '[a]lthough an expired or terminated [commitment] order may no longer have operative effect, [an] appeal should not be dismissed without considering the merits of the underlying [commitment] order.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the rights of and protections for incompetent persons with the Commonwealth's interest in 'protecting the public from potentially dangerous persons' who may be unable to control their actions because of their mental condition”
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.