Romeo v. Youngberg’s Empirical Analysis
644 F.2d 147 · 1980
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 17 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. Romeo (1982), Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District (1989)
56 federal appellate · 17 district · 10 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Estelle v. Gamble · Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Constitution only requires that the courts make certain that professional judgment in fact was exercised. It is not appropriate for the courts to specify which of several professionally acceptable choices should have been made.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[A] decision, if made by a professional, is presumptively valid; liability may be imposed only when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible did not base the decision on such a judgment.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A. If you find that the plaintiff was involuntarily committed for treatment, and no treatment was administered, and no compelling explanation for the lack of treatment was offered, you may hold the defendants liable. B. If you find that the plaintiff has received some treatment, you must then determine whether the treatment is regarded as acceptable in light of present medical or other scientific knowledge. If you find that it is not acceptable, you may find for the plaintiff. In addition, if the evidence does not demonstrate that there is a relationship between the treatment administered and the plaintiffs needs, even if the treatment is arguably regarded as acceptable in other situations, then you may find for the plaintiff. In deciding upon the adequacy of the treatment program adopted you may consider the defendants’ explanations regarding security concerns, administrative necessities and fiscal constraints.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.