Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jacobsongreen2 sentences2008Although “the danger to self standard does not require a threat of immediate harm[,]” “consistent with the basic needs standard, the threat must exist in the near future.” State v. Jacobson, 142 Or App 371, 377 , 922 P2d 670 (1996). 2008Although “the danger to self standard does not require a threat of immediate harm[,]” “consistent with the basic needs standard, the threat must exist in the near future.” State v. Jacobson, 142 Or App 371, 377 , 922 P2d 670 (1996). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Ayalagreen1 sentence2005Compare Nguyen, 180 Or App at 545 , with Ayala, 164 Or App at 404 (applying virtually identical analyses in determining that, because of lack of proof regarding nature and severity of the allegedly mentally ill person’s diabetic condition, person’s failure to take medication for that condition did not support *71 commitment on “basic needs” ground {Ayala) or “dangerous to self’ ground {Nguyen)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bunting
green
2 sentences1996The basic needs standard focuses on an individual’s ability “to survive, either through his own resources or with the help of family or friends.” State v. Bunting, 112 Or App 143, 145 , 826 P2d 1060 (1992). 1996The basic needs standard focuses on an individual’s ability “to survive, either through his own resources or with the help of family or friends.” State v. Bunting, 112 Or App 143, 145 , 826 P2d 1060 (1992). | 2 | 1994–1996 |
State v. Hambleton
green
2 sentences2006Although the danger to self standard does not require a threat of immediate harm, consistent with the basic needs standard, the threat must exist in the near future.” State v. Hambleton, 202 Or App 526, 534 , 123 P3d 370 (2005) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2006Although the danger to self standard does not require a threat of immediate harm, consistent with the basic needs standard, the threat must exist in the near future.” State v. Hambleton, 202 Or App 526, 534 , 123 P3d 370 (2005) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Shadybrook Environmental Protection Ass'n v. Washington County
neutral
1 sentence1987We also quoted an opinion in which the commission required that a ski resort be built on land within a forest zone which was not suitable for timber use. 61 Or App at 481-482 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Still v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF MARION CTY.
neutral
2 sentences1984In Still v. Board of County Comm’rs, 42 Or App 115, 122 , 600 P2d 433 (1979), rev den 288 Or 493 (1980), we stated: “* * * A market demand for rural residential development * * * does not constitute a ‘need’ for it, as that word is used in Goal #2. 1984In Still v. Board of County Comm’rs, 42 Or App 115, 122 , 600 P2d 433 (1979), rev den 288 Or 493 (1980), we stated: “* * * A market demand for rural residential development * * * does not constitute a ‘need’ for it, as that word is used in Goal #2. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Marion County v. Federation for Sound Planning
green
2 sentences1984Marion County v. Federation for Sound Planning, 64 Or App 226, 232-235 , 668 P2d 406 (1983). 1984Marion County v. Federation for Sound Planning, 64 Or App 226, 232-235 , 668 P2d 406 (1983). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.