Thomson Mach. Co. v. Sternberg

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the threat of physical harm must be serious and that many cases suggest the potential harm must be life threatening
• explaining that conduct is “dangerous” for purposes of a danger-to-self commitment if the conduct is “likely to result in physical harm,” which “must, at minimum, involve actual physical harm” that is “serious” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• declining to exercise de novo review in civil commitment appeal when parties did not request it or justify its applica- tion
• declining to exercise de novo review in civil commitment appeal when parties did not request it or justify its applica- tion
• reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a determination that the appellant was a danger to himself
• noting “our cases have established that the threatened harm must, at minimum, involve actual physical harm, and that the physical harm must be serious” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).