Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 N.J. 10 - In Re Quinlan

In Re Quinlan’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

424
cited by 424 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
38
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 16 district · 372 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 424 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023 · most notably Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. P Casey P Casey (1992), Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990)

15 federal appellate · 16 district · 372 state decisions — followed in 38 states

1930197619801990200020102020decided

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 Roe v. Wade · Furman v. Georgia · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Wisconsin v. Yoder

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

  1. “"Having recognized that both a right to be sterilized and a right to procreate exist, we face the problem, as in Quinlan , that Lee Ann Grady is not competent to exercise either of her constitutional rights. What is at stake is not simply a right to obtain contraception or to attempt procreation. Implicit in both these complementary liberties is the right to make a meaningful choice between them. Yet because of her severe mental impairment, Lee Ann does not have the ability to make a choice between sterilization and procreation, or between sterilization and other methods of contraception — a choice which she would presumably make in her 'best interests’ had she such ability. But her inability should not result in the forfeit of this constitutional interest or of the effective protection of her 'best interests.’ If the decision whether or not to procreate is 'a valuable incident of her right of privacy, as we believe it to be, then it should not be discarded solely on the basis that her condition prevents her conscious exercise of the choice.’ Quinlan, supra, at 41 . To preserve that right and the benefits that a meaningful decision would bring to her life, it may be necessary to assert it on her behalf. "... [W]e believe that an appropriate court must make the final determination whether consent to sterilization should be given on behalf of an incompetent individual. It must be the court’s judgment, and not just the parents’ good faith decision, that substitutes for the incom”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We have no doubt ... that if Karen were herself miraculously lucid for an interval (not altering the existing prognosis of the condition to which she would soon return) and perceptive of her irreversible condition, she could effectively decide upon discontinuance of the life-support apparatus, even if it meant the prospect of natural death.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““[ujpon the concurrence of the guardian and family of Karen [Quinlan], should the responsible attending physicians conclude that there is no reasonable possibility of Karen’s ever emerging from her present comatose condition to a cognitive, sapient state and that the life-support apparatus now being administered to Karen should be discontinued, they shall consult with the hospital, ‘Ethics Committee’ or like body of the institution in which Karen is then hospitalized. If that consultative body agrees that there is no reasonable possibility of Karen’s ever emerging from her present comatose condition to a cognitive, sapient state, the present life-support system may be withdrawn and said action shall be without any civil or criminal liability therefor on the part of any participant, whether guardian, physician, hospital, or others.””
    3 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.