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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 16 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. M. A..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. M. A. Anchor | green | “that actual future violence is highly likely.” | 7 |
| 2 | State v. MR | green | “form a foundation for predicting future dangerousness.” | 4 |
| 3 | State v. E.D. | green | “not sufficient to establish that appellant is an ongoing danger to others.” | 3 |
| 4 | State v. DLW | green | “if a mentally ill person has threatened others and has also carried out an overt violent act in the past against another person, those facts generally constitute clear and convincing evidence that the person is a danger to others.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.