Legal Opinion

State v. Rainbolt

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 17, 2002No. MI01-07-24; A115709PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWollheim, J.

Appellant appeals a judgment adjudicating him to be a mentally ill person and committing him to the Mental Health Division. The trial court committed appellant because it found that he suffers from a mental illness and was unwilling or unable to participate in treatment on a voluntary basis. On de novo review, State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59, 61, 545 P2d 97 (1976), we reverse.

In mid-May 2001, appellant started exhibiting a change in his behavior. He was sleeping less, pacing, losing weight, stressed, and generally uncooperative. In late May 2001, appellant was hospitalized at Good Samaritan…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. O'Neill v. O'NeillOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  2. State v. AyalaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  3. State v. TurelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  4. State v. DoeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. RainboltCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  2. State v. D. F.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  3. State v. J. H.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API