United States v. Charters’s Empirical Analysis
863 F.2d 302 · 1988
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably White v. Napoleon (1990), 161 Ill. 2d 200 - In Re CE (1994)
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 14 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 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 18 U.S.C. § 4246 · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. Romeo · Vitek v. Jones
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Making an acceptable professional judgment of the sort here in issue does not require any internal adversarial hearing.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“against arbitrary and capricious actions by government officials,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[i]t is therefore settled that in appropriate circumstances government may properly commit base-line decisions to “deprive” persons of certain liberty (or property) interests to appropriate professionals exercising their specialized professional judgments rather than to traditional judicial or administrative-type adjudicative processes. This occurs when the conflicting interests — individual and governmental — can only be assessed in those terms, and even when, as is usual, the exercise of professional judgment necessarily involves some interpretation of the disputable “meaning” of clinical “facts.””
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.