Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Brelje’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2000
1 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Bell v. Wolfish · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Washington v. Davis
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a. Ten (10) days prior to the proposed placement at Chester, DMHDD shall serve written notice to the future UST and his attorney, of the proposed assignment to Chester. The notice shall include the evidentiary basis for the assignment, a statement that a hearing may be requested to contest the assignment, and the name of the person to whom a request for a hearing should be directed. b. If a request for a hearing is received prior to the scheduled date for admission to Chester a hearing will be convened. The hearing will take place within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the request. A neutral and detached hearing officer will be appointed. The hearing officer will be a physician, psychiatrist, clinical psychologist or qualified examiner; but in no case will s/he have been involved in the evaluation process. The future UST will remain in the jail pending the decision of the hearing officer. c. At the hearing the future UST shall have: 1) An opportunity to contest the proposed assignment; 2) An opportunity to appear in person and to present witnesses and evidence on his behalf; 3) The right to confront and cross examine witnesses unless the hearing officer finds good cause for not allowing confrontation. d. The decision of the hearing officer shall be based upon the evidence introduced at the hearing. The burden shall be on DMHDD to establish that the assignment to Chester is the least restrictive environment appropriate for the future UST, based upon an assessment of the risk ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Chester facility is a maximum security institution that imposes severe restrictions on the movement and activities of its inhabitants. Also, because of Chester’s distant location from Cook County, where most of the patients resided prior to confinement, placement at Chester means being deprived of contact with family and friends. See Anthony v. Wilkerson, 637 F.2d 1130, 1141 (7th Cir. 1980). The UST’s interest in not being transferred to Chester without an individualized finding regarding his treatment needs and dangerousness is indeed substantial.” Johnson, 521 F. Supp. at 727 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[Ujnlike convicted criminals, plaintiffs can justifiably expect that their assignment will be based upon an individualized determination of their dangerousness, conducted prior to placement. This expectation is rooted in the provision of the Illinois Mental Health Code that requires patients to be treated in the least restrictive environment possible, according to an individualized service plan.” Johnson, 521 F. Supp. at 726 .”
1 later decision 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.