7 Cal. 3d 126 - In Re Franklin’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 201 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 223 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably 14 Cal. 3d 306 - People v. Burnick (1975), 14 Cal. 3d 338 - People v. Feagley (1975)
16 federal appellate · 201 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Specht v. Patterson · Baxstrom v. Herold · Lynch v. Overholser · 40 Cal. 2d 876 - People v. Daugherty · 3 Cal. 3d 16 - In Re William M.
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 223 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) ... If the verdict or finding is that the defendant was insane at the time the offense was committed, the court, unless it shall appear to the court that the sanity of the defendant has been recovered fully, shall direct that the defendant be confined in a state hospital for the care and treatment of the mentally disordered ... or the court may order the defendant placed on outpatient status....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Chester Smith was committed by your court on October 2, 1973, under Section 1026 of the California Penal Code after having been found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of stabbing a man with a sharpened stick. The diagnosis made at this hospital is Schizophrenia, paranoid type. “This is just to certify that in my opinion this patient, as a result of hospitalization and treatment has improved to the point that he is capable of returning to society, but not well enough to be certified under Section 1026(a) of the Penal Code without antipsychotic medication. I believe that he is no longer a menace to the health and safety of others and will benefit from parole. I propose that this patient be placed on indefinite leave status to be supervised by the Community Services Section of Department of Health. “This patient has made significant progress in the treatment program and his behavior is now stabilized by antipsychotic medication. He remains free of any symptomatology while on medication and realizes the need for continuing medication. “This certification is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 7375(a) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. A reply is respectfully requested within 30 days regarding the Court’s approval or disapproval of this recommendation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Smith“[t]he court shall hold a hearing to determine if the person applying for restoration of sanity would no longer be a danger to the health and safety of others, including himself or herself, if under supervision and treatment in the community. If the court at the hearing determines the applicant [meets this standard], the court shall order the applicant placed with an appropriate local mental health program for one year.”
1 later decision 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.