Legal Opinion

Hill v. D.D. (In Re Interest of D.D.)

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 2018No. 20180207PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Tufte, Justice.

[¶ 1] D.D. appeals a district court order requiring his involuntary hospitalization and treatment, directing law enforcement to seize D.D.'s firearms, and finding that federal and state firearm restrictions applied to him. We affirm the district court's conclusion that the state and federal firearms restrictions are not unconstitutionally vague and apply to D.D. We reverse the order to seize D.D.'s firearms because neither the state nor the district court identified legal authority for issuing a summary seizure order as part of a mental health commitment process.

I

[¶ 2] In April…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. United States v. MazurieSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. United States v. National Dairy Products Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. EnriquezNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2024
  2. State v. MosesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2022
  3. State v. VetterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
  4. Northern States Power v. MikkelsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020
  5. State v. EnriquezNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2024

2 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