Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 617 F.2d 173 - Suzuki v. Yuen

Suzuki v. Yuen’s Empirical Analysis

617 F.2d 173 · 1980

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
16
states following
October 2019
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Project Release v. Prevost (1983), 98 Wash. 2d 276 - Matter of Harris (1982)

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 16 states

2901980199020002010decided

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 Addington v. Texas · Baxter v. Palmigiano · Humphrey v. Cady · Schmidt v. Lessard · Lessard v. Schmidt

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. “On balance, we find Hawaii’s procedures for the involuntary commitment of dangerous mentally ill individuals in conformity with constitutional rights. With the exception of the “danger to property” provision, and the failure to require imminent danger, the statute strikes the proper balance between protection of society from those who might harm others and preservation of the rights of the mentally ill who are dangerous to none.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We agree that the danger must be imminent to justify involuntary commitment. The legislature knew how to require imminence when it wanted to. . . . “Because it is unconstitutional to commit one who does not pose an imminent danger, the statute as presently worded is unconstitutional.” 617 F.2d at 178 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Under the current Hawaii definition of 'danger to property,' a person could be committed if he threatened to shoot a trespassing dog. The state's interest in protecting animals must be outweighed by the individual's interest in personal liberty.”
    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.