Bell v. Thornburgh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 state decisions

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

1. “"[O]n an appeal from the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction, we do not inquire into the merits of the controversy, but only examine the record to determine if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below. Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the Chancellor."”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Singzon v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare · Shanaman v. YELLOW CAB CO. OF PHILA.

2. “Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, we can find no duty placed upon the State ... that ... any particular mental health facility must remain open and functional for any specific or indefinite future period of time---- Nor are we persuaded that the provisions of Section 202 of the Act directing the State to operate State facilities and authorizing the establishment of additional facilities, either specifically or inferentially, require the State to continue to operate forever all State mental health facilities functioning at the time of the passage of the Act. The absence of a specific authorization in the Act to terminate the operation of a particular mental health facility adds no weight to the inference that plaintiff would have us find in this section. The manifest object of the General Assembly in enacting the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966 was to create a cooperative State-county ... program across the Commonwealth for those who suffer mental health or mental retardation afflictions. Its implementation and need for flexibility to meet improved or new methods and means of treatment would be seriously impaired if not totally frustrated if [any] particular State mental health facility were to enjoy such a monolithic status. To retard or restrict State action in the operation of such a program, a clear specific legislative intent that a particular mental health facility shall remain functional would be required. The Act contains no such provision. (Emphases ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Belfanti v. Casey