Legal Opinion

Matter of Monroe

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 7, 1980No. 8012DC236PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122-58.7(i) requires as a condition to a valid commitment order that the district court find two distinct facts by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence: first, that the respondent is mentally ill or inebriate and second, that the respondent is dangerous to himself or others. Prior to 1 October 1979 the statute required a finding that respondent is imminently dangerous to himself or others.

It is for the trier of fact to determine whether evidence offered in a particular case is clear, cogent, and convincing. Our function on appeal is simply to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Matter of HoganCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Matter of UnderwoodCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  3. Matter of SalemCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  4. Matter of JacobsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  5. In Re BentonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Matter of FosterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1988
  2. In Re WebberCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  3. In re WhatleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  4. In re: J.P.S.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019
  5. Matter of JacksonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

7 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