State v. Nording’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2017
16 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 Jones v. United States · Forrest v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. · Hanson v. Williams County · Hickey v. Morris · United States v. Cohen
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`designed to safeguard a patient's right to be free of forced medication unless the prescribed medication is necessary to effectively treat the patient, unless the medication is the least restrictive form of intervention available for the patient's treatment, and unless the benefits of the medication outweigh its known risks to the patient.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Jd · In Interest of RAJ“Upon application by an individual conditionally released ... the court shall determine whether to continue, modify, or terminate the order. The court shall consider and dispose of an application promptly. In a proceeding under this section, the applicant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The court shall enter an order in accordance with the following requirements: a. If the court finds that the individual •. is not mentally ill or defective or that there is not a substantial risk . that the individual will commit, as a result of mental illness or defect, a criminal act, it shall order, that the individual be discharged from further constraint under this chapter. b. If the cqurt finds that the individual is mentally ill or defective, but that ," there is not a substantial risk that the individual will commit, as a result of mental illness' or defect, •& criminal act of violence threatening another individual with bodily injury or inflicting property damage, -it may modify the conditions of release as appropriate for the protection of ■ • society. ' c. If the court finds that the individual is mentally'ill or defective and that there is a substantial risk that the individual will commit, as a result of mental illness or defect, a criminal - act of violence threatening another individual with bodily injury or inflicting • property damage and that the individual is no longer a proper subject for conditional release, it shall order the individual committe”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Davis“The purposes of NDCC Ch. 12.1-04.1 are clear. The statute seeks to protect society from persons who commit violent crimes and who suffer from mental illness or defect. The statute also seeks to secure appropriate treatment for those- individuals and to release them from involuntary commitment when neither society’s protection nor their welfare requires continued confinement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Davis
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.