Hickey v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
722 F.2d 543 · 1983
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021 · most notably Foucha v. Louisiana (1992), A.E. v. State (1987)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 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.
Relationships
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Addington v. Texas · Craig v. Boren
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he state has a substantial interest in avoiding premature release of insanity acquittees, who have committed acts constituting felonies and have been declared dangerous to society. Because “the insanity acquittal supports an inference of continuing mental illness,” Jones v. United States, 103 S. Ct. at 3050 , the state’s interest in protecting society and the acquittee himself justifies placing the burden on insanity acquittees to show that they no longer present a danger. Moreover, because the defendant himself first raised and proved his insanity, fairness suggests that release should require his own showing of recovery rather than the state’s showing of continued insanity.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'[d]ue process does not always require an adversarial hearing.' Hickey v. Morris , 722 F.2d 543 , 549 (9th Cir. 1983).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“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 probative 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.”
2 later decisions 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.