Revels v. Sanders

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a committed acquittee is entitled to an unconditional release if the acquittee is not presently dangerous or not presently mentally ill
• holding that petition timely because it challenged continued commitment decision and not conviction or initial commitment
• stating that had the factual findings of Revels’s state-court proceedings been before us, “we would assume the correctness of the finding[s] and only reverse if Revels presented clear and convincing evidence that this was not the case”
• \[T]he distinction between conditional and unconditional release is not material in light of Foucha 's governing legal principle.\
• “[T]he distinction between conditional and unconditional release is not material in light of Foucha’s governing legal principle.”
• “[T]he rule urged by the respondent, that a state may continue to hold an insanity acquittee who seeks unconditional release even if he is not presently mentally ill, must be rejected.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).