Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wamstad v. Loy

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 2015No. 20140111Published

1DissentKapsner, Justice

[¶24] I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

[¶ 25] To deprive a person of his liberty for an indefinite period of time in the civil commitment of a sexually dangerous *508individual, the State must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the individual to be committed has a disorder that makes the individual likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and, because of the disorder, is likely to engage in those acts. See N.D.C.C. § 25-08.3-01(8). In addition, substantive due process rights require that the individual facing civil commitment must also be shown to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Van Grinsven v. G.R.H.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Cass County State's Attorney v. E.W.F.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Feland v. J.M.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  4. State v. ParisienNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. EbachNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999

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