Commonwealth v. Helms

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “the petitioner in an involuntary commitment proceeding must prove the requisite statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence” (citations omitted)
• [stating that] “[] the Act does not require ‘threats of harm’ and commission of ‘acts in furtherance of the threat to commit harm[’] as a condition precedent for finding ‘clear and present danger.’”
• observing the \threats and acts\ formula may, not must, be used to demonstrate a clear and present danger
• “the [MHPA] does not require ‘threats of harm’ and commission of ‘acts in furtherance of the threat to commit harm’ as a condition precedent for finding ‘clear and present danger.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).