Pryatel v. J.S.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc. (2009), Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equipment, Inc. (2007)
2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Hust v. Hust · In Interest of RN · In Interest of JS · In Interest of JS · In Interest of JS
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. a. Upon notice and hearing, a treating psychiatrist may request authorization from the court to treat a person under a mental health treatment order with prescribed medication.... As a .part of the request, the treating psychiatrist and another licensed physician or psychiatrist not involved in the current diagnosis or treatment of the patient shall certify:' (1) That the proposed prescribed medication is clinically appropriate and necessary to effectively treat the patient and there is a reasonable expectation that if the person is not treated as proposed there exists a serious risk of harm to that person, other persons, or property; (2) That the patient was offered that treatment and refused it ... (3) That prescribed medication is the least restrictive form of intervention necessary to meet the treatment needs of the patient; and (4) That the benefits of the treatment outweigh the known risks to the patient. [[Image here]] 2. a. Evidence of the factors certified under subsection 1 may be presented to the court at an involuntary-treatment hearing ... or at a separate hearing after motion and notice. [[Image here]] '3. If the factors certified under subsection 1 have been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, the court may include in its involuntary treatment order a provision, or it may issue a separate order after notice and hearing, authorizing the treating psychiatrist to involuntarily treat the patient with prescribed medication.... (Emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Haider v. H.G. · Beane v. S.R.B.“is limited to a review of procedures, findings, and conclusions of the lower court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“to a more probing `clearly erroneous' standard of review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.