Williams v. Wallis’s Empirical Analysis
734 F.2d 1434 · 1984
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably In Re Detention of Turay (1999), Glatz v. Kort (1986)
18 federal appellate · 15 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 · Addington v. Texas · Vitek v. Jones · Parham v. J. R. · Jones v. United States
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Hospitals and their medical professionals certainly have no bias against the patient or against release. Therefore, we can safely assume they are disinterested decision-makers. In fact, the mental health system’s institutional goal — i.e., transfer to a less restrictive environment and eventual release — favors release. Other factors also favor release, including a perennial lack of space and financial resources, which militates against any motivation to unnecessarily prolong hospitalization, and including the medical professional’s pride in his own treatment. The frequency of the evaluations also reduces the risk that the patient will be confined any longer than necessary.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. J.R. v. Hansen · J.R. v. Hansen“[d]ue process does not always require an adversarial hearing”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he decision to release an acquittee is usually initiated by the treatment team.... After the team recommends release, an acquittee not classified as special, can be released with the approval of the forensic unit director of the hospital to which he is committed. The proposed release of special patients, [who are considered dangerous to themselves and others] must be reviewed by the hospital’s superintendent or his desig-nee. The reviewing authority may communicate the proposed release to the committing court; the district attorney, the acquittee’s family, and others, or may order further treatment for, or evaluation of, the acquittee. The hospital superintendent then makes the final decision whether to release the special patient.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. J.R. v. Hansen · J.R. v. Hansen
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.