Legal Opinion

Steinkruger v. Miller

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2000No. NonePublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKonenkamp, Justice

[¶ 1.] Are South Dakota’s forced medication statutes unconstitutional because they fail to require that mental patients be given the least restrictive treatment alternative? The circuit court found that there was no less intrusive alternative available in this case. We conclude that our statutes comport with constitutional constraints by incorporating the least restrictive alternative requirement for incompetent, involuntarily committed patients and affirm the circuit court’s order for forced medication.

A

[¶ 2.] DeWayne Miller, age fifty-seven, currently resides at the South Dakota Human…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Turner v. SafleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. RomeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Steele v. Hamilton County Community Mental Health BoardOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. City of Pierre v. BlackwellSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State v. WilsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State v. RolfeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Steele v. Hamilton Cty. Community Mental Health Bd.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000

8 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