United States v. Simon Dillon

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that the defendant’s “consistent assertions that he is not dangerous serve only to dilute any argument that [he] is likely to be civilly confined”
• recognizing the circuit split as recently as December of 2013
• “[h]olding the Government to a clear and convincing standard of proof affords due regard to the nature of the liberty interest at stake in forced-medication cases”
• “Holding the government to a clear and convincing standard of proof affords due regard to the nature of the liberty interest at stake in forced-medication cases.”
• affirming in part because a study demonstrated that 73.3 percent of individuals with the same disorder as the defendant were restored to competency following the proposed medication regimen
• affirming in part because a study demonstrated that 73.3 percent of individuals with the same disorder as the defendant were restored to competency following the proposed medication regimen

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).