Legal Opinion

Matter of Allmendinger

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 2, 1978No. 926, CA 10923PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.

Defendant challenges his involuntary commitment under ORS ch 426. His sole assignment of error is that there is insufficient evidence to find him mentally ill beyond a reasonable doübt. We review de novo. State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59, 61 n 3, 545 P2d 97 (1976); State v. Nesbitt, 23 Or App 202, 211-12, 541 P2d 1055 (1975), rev den (1976).

The record contains the opinions of two experts that defendant is suffering from manic depressive psychosis. It also contains testimony of defendant and others indicating that defendant behaves in a bizarre manner disturbing to others, and that while in a jail…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. O'Neill v. O'NeillOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Matter of LucasCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  3. Matter of NesbittCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1975
  4. Matter of NelsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. State v. WoolridgeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  3. Matter of HowellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
  4. State v. WoolridgeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. Matter of MatthewsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980

7 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