Rogers v. Okin’s Empirical Analysis
634 F.2d 650 · 1980
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 15 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Washington v. Harper (1990), Mills v. Rogers (1982)
40 federal appellate · 15 district · 18 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Wood v. Strickland · Addington v. Texas · Ingraham v. Wright · Parham v. J. R.
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] person has a constitutionally protected interest in being left free by the state to decide for himself whether to submit to the serious and potentially harmful medical treatment that is represented by the administration of antipsychotic drugs.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“penumbral right to privacy, bodily integrity, or personal security”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he district court in effect found that Massachusetts citizens have a constitutional right upon voluntary admittance to state facilities to dictate to the hospital staff the treatment that they are given. The district court cited no authority for this finding, and we know of none. Massachusetts law provides for the voluntary admission of mental health patients who are “in need of care and treatment .. . providing the admitting facility is suitable for such care and treatment.” Mass. Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 123 § 10(a). The statute does not guarantee voluntary patients the treatment of their choice. Instead, it offers a treatment regimen that state doctors and staff determine is best, and if the patient thinks otherwise, he can leave. 10 We can find nothing even arguably unconstitutional in such a statutory scheme.”
2 later decisions 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.