Cameron v. Tomes’s Empirical Analysis
990 F.2d 14 · 1993
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Cohen v. Brown University (1993), Kosilek v. Spencer (2014)
14 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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 Rochin v. People of California · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. Romeo · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any professional judgment that decides an issue involving conditions of confinement must embrace security and administration, and not merely medical judgments.... The administrators are responsible to the state and to the public for making professional judgments of their own, encompassing institutional concerns as well as individual welfare. Nothing in the Constitution mechanically gives controlling weight to one set of professional judgments.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a class action judgment . . . binds the class members as to matters actually litigated but does not resolve any claim based on individual circumstances that was not addressed in the class action . . . .[C]lass action institutional litigation often addresses general circumstances, not the distinctive plight of someone claiming special needs or status”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Youngberg left in limbo a prior line of lower court cases and academic literature that had sought to shape a broad constitutional ‘right to treatment,’ including treatment of the psychological ills of confined persons. Since Youngberg , a few circuits have ventured into this constitutional territory, returning with different answers. We ourselves may have seemed to send mixed signals. In Doe v. Gaughan, 808 F.2d 871 (1st Cir.1986), this court under the caption ‘constitutional right to treatment,’ agreed that Youngberg extended beyond the retarded to protect similar interests of those mentally ill persons civilly committed to a different Bridgewater facility. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cameron v. Fair
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.