Analyzing constitutionality of statutory commitment periods
Also stated as: Setting time limits for commitment extensions under penal code
The pages courts cite for it
- Cited for: Analyzing constitutionality of statutory commitment periods
- Cited for: Determining ambiguity in statutory commitment period
- Cited for: Interpreting statutory language regarding commitment periods
- Cited for: Determining applicability of statute of limitations to civil commitment
- Cited for: Interpreting statute of limitations in commitment proceedings
Ranked by how often federal courts cite each page. The bar is how citing opinions treated that page (green followed, yellow questioned or limited, red negative); a red or yellow chip is the case’s own overall treatment.
Federal opinions citing these pages
- In re Ballew, 487 B.R. 657 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013)
- Richard Baud v. Krispen S. Carroll, No. 09-2164 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2011)
- Baud v. Carroll, 634 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2011)
- In re Grant, 364 B.R. 656 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2007)
- Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Nicholas, Connie, 759 F.2d 1073 (3d Cir. 1985)
- Ralston v. Robinson, 454 U.S. 201 (1982)
- United States v. Donald Warren Hudson, 667 F.2d 767 (8th Cir. 1982)
- Thompson v. Carlson, 624 F.2d 415 (3d Cir. 1980)
- United States ex rel. Conrad A. Dancy v. Floyd E. Arnold, 572 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1978)
From the opinions citing the top pages above (up to 400 per page are read), most pages cited first, then newest.
Nearest issues
- 62 opinions
- 22 opinions
- 70 opinions
- 106 opinions
- 192 opinions
- 70 opinions
- 34 opinions
- 14 opinions
Filed under: Statutory Time Limits and Deadlines
Where else it is alive
Opinions per jurisdiction citing these pages. A span that stops early can mean the doctrine was dropped there.
How this is built: each issue is a set of opinion pages that later courts cite for the same proposition, grouped from what the citing courts wrote. Names are machine-written from those citations; read the cases before relying on them. Search case law