From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Lake v. Cameron
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
364 F.2d 657 (1966)
Mrs. Lake (plaintiff) was confined to a state hospital after a police officer found her wandering, unaware of her surroundings. Lake was admitted to the hospital, pending commitment proceedings, and was diagnosed with a senile brain disease associated with aging and accompanied by memory loss. Two hospital psychiatrists noted that at times Lake could not remember the date or where she was. While awaiting her commitment hearing, Lake filed a writ of habeas corpus in a United States district court, naming the hospital’s superintendent, Cameron, as a defendant. Lake’s writ was summarily dismissed, but she appealed. While her habeas appeal was pending, Lake was committed to the hospital by state-court order based on the testimony of the two hospital psychiatrists who concluded that Lake’s condition left her unable to care for herself. Meanwhile, a United States court of appeals remanded the district court’s habeas dismissal for a hearing. At Lake’s habeas hearing, another psychiatrist noted that Lake had wandered away from the hospital for 32 hours and suffered a minor injury after being chased by a group of boys, but overall Lake’s condition had improved during her hospitalization. Lake had also been molested once while wandering in her demented state, but she believed that she could live safely without hospitalization. Lake was supported by her husband and sister, who did not have adequate resources to care for Lake but shared the desire that she not be confined to the state hospital. The district court denied Lake’s release again but stated that she could reapply if she found an adequate care facility. A new law became effective after the district court’s decision, encouraging courts to consider the entire spectrum of available services when ordering involuntary mental-health treatment. Lake then appealed the district court’s habeas dismissal.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Bazelon, C.J.)
Dissent (Burger, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 616,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 616,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.