Protests 121244-K of Balfour, Guthrie & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “we have often required evidence that the delusional behavior either led to past harm or to narrowly averted past harm”
• observing that “past near-misses” of appellant walking into traffic can allow for inference of likelihood of future harm to self
• concluding that evidence that the appellant’s delusions once caused her to stand in the middle of an intersection with traffic stopped in all directions, with no evidence that she had placed herself at risk of being hit by a vehicle, was insufficient to support civil commitment
• discussing previous case law in which we have based determination of dangerousness to others on explicit threats combined with overt acts that made the threats credible
• applying the legal sufficiency standard to determine whether the appellant was a danger to herself and others
• describing the type of \danger\ necessary to justify an involuntary civil commitment as \a narrow range of serious and highly probable threats of harm\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).