Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 68 SW3D 747 - Campbell v. State

Campbell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 180th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Addington v. Texas · Southern Pacific Terminal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Vitek v. Jones

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Judicial Release. A person acquitted by reason of insanity and committed to a mental hospital ... may only be discharged by order of the committing court in accordance with the procedures specified in this subsection. If at any time prior to the expiration of a commit ment order the superintendent of the facility to which the acquitted person is committed determines that the person has recovered from his mental condition to such an extent that he no longer meets the criteria for involuntary commitment ..., the director of the facility shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. If the superintendent of the facility intends to recommend release, out-patient care, or continued in-patient care upon the expiration of a commitment order, the superintendent shall file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment at least 14 days prior to the expiration of that order. ... Upon receipt of such certificate or upon the expiration of a commitment order, the court shall order the discharge of the acquitted person or on the motion of the district or county attorney or on its own motion shall hold a hearing, prior to the expiration of the commitment order, conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Mental Health Code ... to determine if the acquitted person continues to meet the criteria for involuntary commitment.... 14”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(A) the examined person is mentally ill; and (B) as a result of that illness the examined person is likely to cause serious harm to himself or to others or is: (i) suffering severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress; (ii) experiencing substantial mental or physical deterioration of his ability to function independently, which is exhibited by the proposed patient’s inability, except for reasons of indigence, to provide for the proposed patient’s basic needs, including food, clothing, health, or safety; and (iii) not able to make a rational and informed decision as to whether to submit to treatment. 22”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[Stricter provisions accompany an application for involuntary commitment or recommitment under the [Mental Health Code] than a recommitment under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This seems to further a rather obvious public policy: a higher level of proof is required to even initiate a commitment proceeding against a person who has not already been adjudicated violently insane. 31”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.