In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a patient involved in SPP/SDP proceedings could waive statutory hearing deadlines although the statute did not explicitly allow for waiver
• concluding that the district court does not lose subject matter jurisdiction when statutory deadlines in sexual-psychopathic-personality and sexually-dangerous-person (SPP/SDP) proceedings pass before a hearing is held
• reasoning that “there is a fundamental difference between finding that a deadline is mandatory and concluding that it operates to take away the district court’s authority to act”
• holding that waiver may be inferred from acquiescence
• noting that “classifying time prescriptions, even rigid ones, under the heading subject matter jurisdiction can be confounding” and that “[t]he label jurisdictional should be used only for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases (subject-matter jurisdiction
• explaining that “[t]he statute ... does not deprive the court of power to act, which means that the district court did not lose subject matter jurisdiction when the statutory deadlines passed prior to the merits hearing being held”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).