Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Riggins v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1991No. 19873Published

1ConcurrenceRose, J.

I am concurring with the majority because I would have preferred two points to have been better established by the record. First, the fact that Riggins needed to be on the prescribed drug; and second, that he could not adequately function if the medication were terminated.

When Riggins was arrested, he complained of hearing voices and having trouble sleeping. He told Dr. Edward Quass, a psychiatrist, that he had taken Mellaril before and it had helped him. After a ten minute examination, Dr. Quass prescribed 100 milligrams a day because, as he said, Riggins had been on the drug before. Dr.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lizotte v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API