Project Release v. Prevost’s Empirical Analysis
722 F.2d 960 · 1983
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 20 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 316 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Rodriguez v. City of New York (1995), Kulak v. City of New York (1996)
40 federal appellate · 20 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 20 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Gault · Paul v. Davis
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 316 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ajssuming that th[e] term [“mental illness”] can be given a reasonably precise content and that the “mentally ill” can be identified with reasonable accuracy, there is still no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous tp no one and can live safely in freedom.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a mental illness for which care and treatment as a patient in a hospital is essential to such person's welfare and whose judgment is so impaired that he is unable to understand the need for such care and treatment,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the New York State civil commitment scheme, considered as a whole and as interpreted in Scopes [v. Shah, 59 A.D.2d 203 , 205-06, 398 N.Y.S.2d 911 , 913 (3d Dep’t 1977) ] to include a showing of dangerousness, meets minimum due process standards without the addition of an overt act requirement. We believe that further inquiry concerning the extent to which such a requirement might decrease the chance of error in predicting dangerousness may be better explored in the legislative forum.”
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.