Kruthanooch v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that defendant offered intoxication as explanation for her actions when she “made an offer of proof to support her theory that she was so intoxicated that she was unable to form intent” (quotation omitted)
• explaining that, for a general-intent crime, “[i]t is not necessary that [the actor] intend the resulting harm or know that his conduct is criminal”
• \[W]e interpret the statute in a manner that renders no part of it meaningless.\
• “[T]he mere fact of a person’s drinking does not create a presumption of intoxication, and the possibility of intoxication does not create the presumption that a person is incapable of forming a specific intent.” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).