Court of Appeals of Oregon· 12/15/1999

State v. Ayala

Citations

991 P.2d 1100
164 Or. App. 399
1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 2108

How courts have described this case

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

reaching same conclusion on “basic needs” ground: “Apprehensions, speculations and conjecture are not sufficient to prove a need for mental commitment.”
applying virtually identical analyses in determining that, because of lack of proof regarding nature and severity of the allegedly mentally ill person’s diabetic condition, person’s failure to take medication for that condition did not support commitment on “basic needs” ground {Ayala
“Apprehensions, speculations and conjecture are not suffi- cient to prove a need for mental commitment.”
“Apprehensions, speculations and conjecture are not sufficient to prove a need for mental commitment.”
“Apprehensions, speculations and conjecture are not sufficient to prove a need for mental commitment.”
“Apprehensions, speculations and conjecture are not sufficient to prove a need for mental commitment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: De Muniz, Haselton, Wollheim

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.