In Re Grady’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 district · 112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Matter of Conroy (1985), Greenberg v. Kimmelman (1985)
2 district · 112 state decisions — followed in 15 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 42 U.S.C. § 6000 (Developmental Disabilities Act of 1984)
Relies on Roe v. Wade · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Boddie v. Connecticut · Stump v. Sparkman · Addington v. Texas
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(2) The possibility that the incompetent person will experience trauma or psychological damage if she becomes pregnant or gives birth, and, conversely, the possibility of trauma or psychological damage from the sterilization operation. (3) The likelihood that the individual will voluntarily engage in sexual activity or be exposed to situations where sexual intercourse is imposed upon her. (4) The inability of the incompetent person to understand reproduction or contraception and the likely permanence of that inability. * * * (7) The ability of the incompetent person to care for a child, or the possibility that the incompetent may at some future date be able to marry and, with a spouse, care for a child. (8) Evidence that scientific or medical advances may occur within the foreseeable future which will make possible either improvement of the individual's condition or alternative and less drastic sterilization procedures. (9) A demonstration that the proponents of sterilization are seeking it in good faith and that their primary concern is for the best interests of the incompetent person rather than their own or the public's convenience.'" Terwilliger, 304 Pa.Super. at 567 , 450 A.2d at 1383 , quoting Grady, 85 N.J. at 264 , 426 A.2d at 483 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“. . . it is a genuine choice nevertheless . . . one designed to further the same interests she might pursue had she the ability to decide herself.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"Having recognized that both a right to be sterilized and a right to procreate exist, we face the problem, as in Quinlan , that Lee Ann Grady is not competent to exercise either of her constitutional rights. What is at stake is not simply a right to obtain contraception or to attempt procreation. Implicit in both these complementary liberties is the right to make a meaningful choice between them. Yet because of her severe mental impairment, Lee Ann does not have the ability to make a choice between sterilization and procreation, or between sterilization and other methods of contraception — a choice which she would presumably make in her 'best interests’ had she such ability. But her inability should not result in the forfeit of this constitutional interest or of the effective protection of her 'best interests.’ If the decision whether or not to procreate is 'a valuable incident of her right of privacy, as we believe it to be, then it should not be discarded solely on the basis that her condition prevents her conscious exercise of the choice.’ Quinlan, supra, at 41 . To preserve that right and the benefits that a meaningful decision would bring to her life, it may be necessary to assert it on her behalf. "... [W]e believe that an appropriate court must make the final determination whether consent to sterilization should be given on behalf of an incompetent individual. It must be the court’s judgment, and not just the parents’ good faith decision, that substitutes for the incom”
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.