Hogan v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
85 F.3d 1113 · 1996
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Wilson v. Layne (1999), Green v. French (1998)
30 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Morrissey v. Brewer · Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. Romeo · Washington v. Harper · Parham v. J. R.
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]ince unpublished opinions are not even regarded as binding precedent in our circuit, such opinions cannot be considered in deciding whether particular conduct violated clearly established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“•If, in the context of prolonged treatment [as in Harper ], an inmate may be involuntarily medicated with an antipsychotic drug if a medical professional determines such medication to be in the inmate’s best medical interests, then a fortiori the [S]tate retains the authority to administer such a drug in an emergency situation based upon the same medical judgment. To the extent that Harper can be read as constitutionally requiring full independent review of a medical judgment before administering an antipsychotic drug, we believe that such a holding would be properly understood as addressed to the circumstance of long-term treatment there at issue, and not as extending to emergencies. Otherwise, the state would be obliged, as the district court would have here required, to convene full-scale adversary proceedings at the any hour of the night, appoint and retain counsel, subpoena witnesses, and allow for cross-examination — all while the very inmates for whose protection the state is constitutionally responsible remain in danger of injury at their own hands.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“it is not unlikely that [doctor] would now be facing a lawsuit by [prisoner] claiming that he was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.