Legal Opinion

State v. King

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 31, 2001No. C990001MC; A105266PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, P. J.

Appellant appeals from an involuntary mental commitment order. ORS 426.130. He argues that the trial court erred in finding that there is clear and convincing evidence that he is a danger to others due to his mental illness and that he would not willingly and voluntarily participate in treatment. ORS 426.005(1)(d); ORS 426.130(1)(b). We review de novo, State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59, 61, 545 P2d 97 (1976), and affirm.

Appellant was 41 years old at the time of the hearing. He has a bipolar and schizophrenic condition. His delusions and misperceptions of reality cause him to act on false beliefs.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. O'Neill v. O'NeillOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  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. State v. BodellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. State v. M. R.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  2. State v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  3. State v. D. L. W.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  4. State v. NorthCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  5. State v. HittCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002

20 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