United States v. Grape’s Empirical Analysis
549 F.3d 591 · 2008
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 13 district · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 3585 · 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 18 U.S.C. § 4246 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · North Carolina v. Rice
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A “rule-out” diagnosis ... means there is “evidence that the patient may meet the criteria for that diagnosis, but the doctors need more information to rule it out.” In other words, there is reason to suspect the presence of a “rule-out” psychotic disorder, but the doctor would not be comfortable giving such a diagnosis at that time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“clear and convincing evidence” standard previously articulated in Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 , 134, 112 S.Ct. 1810 , 118 L.Ed.2d 479 (1992), as to the factual findings in Sell factors two through four); Green, 532 F.3d at 545 (”
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.