United States v. Timms’s Empirical Analysis
664 F.3d 436 · 2012
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 4247 · 18 U.S.C. § 4248 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Barker v. Wingo · Morrissey v. Brewer · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · United States v. Salerno
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) previously engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation (the “prior conduct” prong); (2) currently suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder (the “serious mental illness” prong); and (3) as a result of that mental condition, the individual would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released (the “volitional control” prong).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]ne will search § 4247(a)(6) in vain for any language purporting to confine the universe of qualifying mental impairments within clinical or pedagogical parameters. The statute could have been drafted to comport with clinical norms, but inasmuch as Congress chose not to do so, it has been left to the courts to develop the meaning of “serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder” as a legal term of art.”
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.