In Re Commitment of Fisher
Texas Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Jefferson
A jury determined that Michael James Fisher suffered from a behavioral abnormality that made him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence, and the trial court ordered Fisher committed pursuant to the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act (the “Act”). The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Act was punitive, not civil, and violated Fisher’s due process rights. Because we conclude that a commitment proceeding under the Act is civil and that Fisher received the process he was due under the United States and Texas Constitutions, we reverse the court of appeals’…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by158 opinions
- Leonard v. Abbott, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2005
- Ruth v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2005
- in Re Commitment of Carlos Cortez, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2013
- Clarence Brown v. Allison TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018
- Howeth Investments, Inc. v. City of Hedwig Village, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2008
153 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.