United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 986 · 1987
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2018
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4241
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Morris v. Slappy · United States v. Daly · Mitchell v. Schweiker · Martin v. Secretary of Department of Health, Education & Welfare
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“investigate the situation, assemble the pertinent- data, and then consider not only the medical evidence but also the defendant’s activities (in the courtroom and outside of it), the steps defendant. is taking (or neglecting to take) to improve his health, and the measures which can feasibly be implemented to reduce medical risks. ... [T]he judge must [then] weigh the foreseeable, risks against the demonstrable public interest, taking into account factors such as the severity of the charges and the extent of the government’s interest in trying the defendant. If the perceived risks overbalance the perceived benefits, a continuance must be granted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It was entirely proper, of course, for the court to consider its observations of the defendant's activity and alertness in ascertaining his physical and mental capabilities.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] district judge's discretion in these matters properly includes the power to discount [the testimony of the defendant's personal physician]. He might find a treating physician’s testimony unpersuasive because he lacks confidence in the physician’s qualifications or abilities. The trial judge must also weigh, implicitly or explicitly, a treating physician’s candor and objectivity.... [Rjules developed by appellate courts in limiting the discretion of administrative law judges and administrative agencies — rules motivated in part by concerns about agency independence and bias — have little or no relevance to the exercise of discretion by a district court.”
1 later decision 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.