State v. Linde

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an appeal of an order committing an accused mentally ill person is not moot after the period of confinement, because of the “undeniable” stigma associated with mental commitment
• holding that an appeal of an order committing an accused mentally ill person is not moot after the period of confinement, because of the \undeniable\ stigma associated with mental commitment
• on de novo review, reversing a basic needs commitment where there was insufficient evidence that the appellant’s failure to take medication would be in any way life-threatening, much less in the near future
• on de novo review, reversing a basic needs commitment where there was insufficient evidence that the appellant’s failure to take medication would be in any way life-threatening, much less in the near future
• the larger the period of commitment, the greater the stigma

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. K.J.B. (In re K.J.B.)
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2018-04-19· cited 72×
• State v. Hauskins
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-07-05· cited 25×
• State v. M. A. B.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-05-02· cited 16×
• In re M.C.
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2019-02-05· cited 14×
• State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. L.B. & N. A. M.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-01-27· cited 13×
• State v. S. G.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-02-20· cited 13×
• State v. Gibson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-04-03· cited 9×
• State v. B. A. F. (In re B. A. F.)
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-01-31· cited 9×
• State v. J. B.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-12-26· cited 4×
• In Re Ab
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-01-27
• State v. MAB
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-05-02
• Dept. of Human Services v. A. B.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2018-02-08
• State v. Pierce
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2006-04-05