Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Kansas Vs. Hendricks

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 10, 1996

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

66 entries 13 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Foucha Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · May 18, 1992
  2. Jacobson Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1905
    Relied / Followed
  3. Addington Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1979
    Relied / Followed
  4. Heller Vs. Doe US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1993
  5. Ake Vs. Oklahoma US Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1986
  6. Jackson Vs. Indiana US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1972
  7. United States Vs. Ward US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1980
  8. United States Vs. Ursery US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1996
  9. O'Connor Vs. Donaldson US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1975
  10. California Dept. of Corrections Vs. Morales US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1995
  11. Baxstrom Vs. Herold US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1966
  12. Youngberg Vs. Romeo US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1982
  13. Calder Vs. Bull US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1798
  14. U.S. 346 (1996) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Kansas V. Hendricks
    Search
  15. protected liberty interest in avoiding physical restraint may be overridden even in the civil context. Jacobson v. Massachusetts
    Search
  16. and safety, provided the confinement takes place pursuant to proper procedures and evidentiary standards. Fou cha v. Louisiana
    Search
  17. Together with No. 95-9075, Hendricks v. Kansas
    Search
  18. see, e. g., Heller v. Doe
    Search
  19. and leaves to the States the task of defining terms of a medical nature that have legal significance. Cf. Jones v. United
    Search
  20. The categorization of a particular proceeding as civil or criminal is a question of statutory construction. Allen v. Illinois
    Search
  21. that the scheme is so punitive in purpose or effect as to negate Kansas' intention to deem it civil. United States v. Ward
    Search
  22. the dangerously mentally ill has been historically regarded as a legitimate nonpunitive objective. Cf. United States v. Salerno
    Search
  23. punishment, the detention does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, even though it follows a prison term. Baxstrom v. Herold
    Search
  24. test of Blockburger v. United
    Search
  25. flawed. The Ex Post Facto Clause pertains exclusively to penal statutes. California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales
    Search
  26. see also Schall v. Martin
    Search
  27. Allen v. Illinois
    Search
  28. Pearson v. Probate
    Search
  29. left to legislators the task of defining terms of a medical nature that have legal significance. Cf. Jones v. United
    Search
  30. such disagreement exists that legislatures have been afforded the widest latitude in drafting such statutes. Cf. Jones v. United
    Search
  31. a scienter requirement is customarily an important element in distinguishing criminal from civil statutes. See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
    Search
  32. persons afflicted with an untreatable, highly contagious disease. Accord, Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana
    Search
  33. mentally ill and dangerous simply because they could not be successfully treated for their afflictions. Cf. Greenwood v. United
    Search
  34. upon a showing 4 We have explained that the States enjoy wide latitude in developing treatment regimens. Youngberg v. Romeo
    Search
  35. In Allen v. Illinois
    Search
  36. Witte v. United
    Search
  37. Act is civil in nature, initiation of its commitment proceedings does not constitute a second prosecution. Cf. Jones v. United
    Search
  38. not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, even though that confinement may follow a prison term. Indeed, in Baxstrom v. Herold
    Search
  39. has been interpreted to pertain exclusively to penal statutes. California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales
    Search
  40. U. S. 499 , 505 (1995) (quoting Lindsey v. Washington
    Search
  41. or mental abnormality, constitute a real, continuing, and serious danger to society is well established. Addington v. Texas
    Search
  42. or has all but completed serving, a penal sentence, provided there is no object or purpose to punish. See Baxstrom v. Herold
    Search
  43. Clause provided that the commitment takes place pursuant to proper procedures and evidentiary standards. See Foucha v. Louisiana
    Search
  44. permits Kansas to classify Hendricks as a mentally ill and dangerous person for civil commitment purposes. Allen v. Illinois
    Search
  45. Jones v. United
    Search
  46. The Constitution permits a State to follow one reasonable professional view, while rejecting another. See Addington v. Texas
    Search
  47. this kind of abnormality akin to insanity for purposes of confinement. See, e. g., Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate
    Search
  48. utter lack of power to control ... sexual impulses''') (quoting State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate
    Search
  49. those crimes in 1984. Calder v. Bull
    Search
  50. those whom the Act confines and ordinary prisoners are treated alike). Cf. Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial