Charles L. Parrish v. State of Colorado Gale A. Norton, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “unless an acquittee has an identifiable mental condition, he cannot be held by the state merely because he is dangerous”
• “The crux of the issue ... is not whether the acquittee must be ill in the medical sense, but whether his mental state fits a constitutionally valid legal definition.”
• “[T]he real significance of the [Foucha] holding is that unless an acquittee has an identifiable mental condition, he cannot be held by the state merely because he is dangerous.”
• “The crux of the issue ... is not whether the acquittee must be ill in the medical sense, but whether his mental state fits a constitutionally valid legal definition.”
• “The crux of the issue ... is not whether the acquittee must be ill in the medical sense, but whether his mental state fits a constitutionally valid legal definition.”
• “The crux of the issue . . . is not whether the acquittee must be ill in the medical sense, but whether his mental state fits a constitutionally valid legal definition.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).