Legal Opinion
Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 6, 2003No. 02-35530PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
Oregon, in recognition of the constitutional rights of mentally incapacitated persons charged with a crime, commendably has enacted statutory procedures for the identification and restorative treatment of such persons so that their guilt or innocence can be determined in a trial. This case presents the question of what happens when the state mental hospital (Oregon State Hospital or “OSH”), which is charged with evaluating and treating mentally incapacitated defendants, refuses to accept such defendants on a timely basis. Plaintiffs contend that OSH’s delays in accepting…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Baker v. McCollanSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Oscar W. Jones v. Lou Blanas County of SacramentoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Oregon Advocacy Center v. MinkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- People v. BrewerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Nike, Inc. v. Eugene McCarthyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Ball ex rel. Burba v. KasichDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2017
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.