8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2016 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 sentences2016B., 240 Or App at 84 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Olsen, 208 Or App at 693 (“Evidence of delusions, general lack of judgment, and failure to plan for release * * * is simply not the kind of evidence of a particularized, near-term threat that is required to justify appellant’s involuntary commitment on the ground that he is a danger to himself.”); State v. Jacobson, 142 Or App 371, 377 , 922 P2d 670 (1996) (“Evidence of general mental and physical deterioration is insufficient to justify a finding of mental illness under the danger to self standard.”). 2016B., 240 Or App at 84 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Olsen, 208 Or App at 693 (“Evidence of delusions, general lack of judgment, and failure to plan for release * * * is simply not the kind of evidence of a particularized, near-term threat that is required to justify appellant’s involuntary commitment on the ground that he is a danger to himself.”); State v. Jacobson, 142 Or App 371, 377 , 922 P2d 670 (1996) (“Evidence of general mental and physical deterioration is insufficient to justify a finding of mental illness under the danger to self standard.”). | 2 | 6 |
State v. BBgreen1 sentence2016B., 240 Or App at 84 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Olsen, 208 Or App at 693 (“Evidence of delusions, general lack of judgment, and failure to plan for release * * * is simply not the kind of evidence of a particularized, near-term threat that is required to justify appellant’s involuntary commitment on the ground that he is a danger to himself.”); State v. Jacobson, 142 Or App 371, 377 , 922 P2d 670 (1996) (“Evidence of general mental and physical deterioration is insufficient to justify a finding of mental illness under the danger to self standard.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olsengreen1 sentence2016B., 240 Or App at 84 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Olsen, 208 Or App at 693 (“Evidence of delusions, general lack of judgment, and failure to plan for release * * * is simply not the kind of evidence of a particularized, near-term threat that is required to justify appellant’s involuntary commitment on the ground that he is a danger to himself.”); State v. Jacobson, 142 Or App 371, 377 , 922 P2d 670 (1996) (“Evidence of general mental and physical deterioration is insufficient to justify a finding of mental illness under the danger to self standard.”). | 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. 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 |
State v. Sea
green
2 sentences2002The state must present clear and convincing evidence that a person’s mental disorder has resulted in harm “ ‘or created situations likely to result in harm.’ ” State v. Sea, 137 Or App 333, 338 , 904 P2d 182 (1995) (quoting State v. Christofferson, 47 Or App 1087, 1090 , 615 P2d 1152 (1980)). 2002The state must present clear and convincing evidence that a person’s mental disorder has resulted in harm “ ‘or created situations likely to result in harm.’ ” State v. Sea, 137 Or App 333, 338 , 904 P2d 182 (1995) (quoting State v. Christofferson, 47 Or App 1087, 1090 , 615 P2d 1152 (1980)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Matter of Christofferson
green
2 sentences2002The state must present clear and convincing evidence that a person’s mental disorder has resulted in harm “ ‘or created situations likely to result in harm.’ ” State v. Sea, 137 Or App 333, 338 , 904 P2d 182 (1995) (quoting State v. Christofferson, 47 Or App 1087, 1090 , 615 P2d 1152 (1980)). 2002The state must present clear and convincing evidence that a person’s mental disorder has resulted in harm “ ‘or created situations likely to result in harm.’ ” State v. Sea, 137 Or App 333, 338 , 904 P2d 182 (1995) (quoting State v. Christofferson, 47 Or App 1087, 1090 , 615 P2d 1152 (1980)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. LeHuquet
neutral
2 sentences1996State v. LeHuquet, 54 Or App 895, 896 , 636 P2d 467 (1981). 1996State v. LeHuquet, 54 Or App 895, 896 , 636 P2d 467 (1981). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.