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.
7 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2022Also, by way of further analogy, in State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282, 303-04 (1978), where a committee was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI), the Court explained that although a commitment review hearing allows for the determination of the level of restraint on the liberty of the committee, the "committee remains free to challenge the propriety of those restraints at any time." Importantly, the Court noted, "[a]t any such committee-initiated review proceeding, the burden of proof is on the committee. 1980On December 31, 1979, following a commitment review hearing [1] pursuant to State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282 (1978) the trial judge ordered that defendant "remain committed to the civil section of Trenton Psychiatric Hospital." Defendant's application for a new trial was denied on January 30, 1980 for the following reasons: 1. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Applications for the Commitment of Slgreen2 sentences1986The Public Advocate urges on behalf of S.D. that the record *213 made at the commitment review hearing ( R. 4:74-7(f)) does not justify the continued commitment, that S.D. should be discharged pending placement (DPP) and that he should be afforded "an immediate placement review hearing" in accordance with In re S.L., 94 N.J. 128 (1983). 1985The dependency of those in this category *177 was recognized by the Court in In re S.L., 94 N.J. 128, 140-141 (1983), in prescribing a procedure for the care of such persons while awaiting placement: When a court determines at a commitment review hearing conducted pursuant to R. 4:74-7(f) that an individual is no longer dangerous to self, others or property by reason of mental illness, the individual shall be entitled to leave the mental hospital and re-enter the community. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Commitment of MCgreen1 sentence2021See In re M.C., 385 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Krol
green
2 sentences1980It was, nevertheless, dealt with by the court as a commitment review hearing. [2] State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236 (1975). [1] Because neither the court nor counsel had "any problem" with the qualifications of Dr. Simring, they do not appear in this record. 1980State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236 (1975). | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Matter of Dc
green
1 sentence1995III In N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.1b, the Legislature made it clear that involuntary commitment proceedings must strictly adhere to statutory safeguards: Because involuntary commitment entails certain deprivations of liberty, it is necessary that State law balance the basic value of liberty with the need for safety and treatment, a balance that is difficult to effect because of the limited ability to predict behavior; and, therefore, it is necessary that State law provide clear standards and procedural safeguards that ensure that only those persons who are dangerous to themselves, to others or to proper | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.