People v. David S.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there was lack of continuity between what was requested in the State’s petition and the evidence presented in support of the petition
• concluding that there was lack of continuity between what was requested in the State’s petition and the evidence presented in support of the petition
• reversing the trial court’s order for lack of sufficient evidence in support of the State’s petition
• reversing the trial court’s order for lack of sufficient evidence in support of the State’s petition
• finding an order authorizing tests to be unsupported by the evidence where the State’s expert did not testify about “the reasons for the tests” or why they “were deemed ‘essential’ ”
• finding an order authorizing tests to be unsupported by the evidence where the State's expert did not testify about \the reasons for the tests\ or why they \were deemed 'essential' \

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).