Legal Opinion

State v. Judd

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 17, 2006No. 0412-72651; A127031PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenblum, J.

The trial court committed appellant to the custody of the Department of Human Services (DHS) after finding that, because of a mental disorder, he was dangerous to himself and unable to provide for his own basic needs. ORS 426.005(l)(d)(A), (B); ORS 426.130. Appellant contends on appeal that the findings are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The state concedes that the record does not support the “basic needs” finding but argues that the trial court correctly concluded that appellant was dangerous to himself. On de novo review, State v. North, 189 Or App 518, 520, 76 P3d 685…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State v. BrungardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  2. State v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  3. State v. HambletonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  4. State v. NorthCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  5. State v. SeaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. B. B.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  2. State v. D. R.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  3. State v. M. A.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  4. State v. OlsenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  5. State v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API