Martell v. L.D.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 81 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Person requiring treatment" means a person who is mentally ill or chemically dependent, and there is a reasonable expectation that if the person is not treated there exists a serious risk of harm to that person, others, or property." Serious risk of harm" means a substantial likelihood of: a. Suicide, as manifested by suicidal threats, attempts, or significant depression relevant to suicidal potential; b. Killing or inflicting serious bodily harm on another person or inflicting significant property damage, as manifested by acts or threats; c. Substantial deterioration in physical health, or substantial injury, disease, or death, based upon recent poor self-control or judgment in providing one's shelter, nutrition, or personal care; or d. Substantial deterioration in mental health which would predictably result in dangerousness to that person, others, or property, based upon evidence of objective facts to establish the loss of cognitive or volitional control over the person's thoughts or actions or based upon acts, threats, or patterns in the person's treatment history, current condition, and other relevant factors, including the effect of the person's mental condition on the person's ability to consent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Weisenburger v. R.S.

2. “). She based her conclusion on L.D.'s history of alcohol abuse and its effect on his physical ailments. The district court found L.D. was chemically dependent and there was a substantial likelihood of substantial deterioration in his physical health if he did not undergo treatment. The court ordered L.D. to undergo treatment at WCHSC for a period not to exceed ninety days. II [¶ 5] Appellate review of an involuntary treatment order is governed by N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-29 and is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re LD

3. “R.N., 1997 ND 246, ¶ 9 , 572 N.W.2d 820 , and we see no reason to depart from it in the present case. IV [¶ 8] L.D. argues the district court's order should be reversed because Petitioner did not testify at the treatment hearing. He claims Ms. Knutson's testimony was based on information that never would have been obtained had there not been a petition filed. Therefore, L.D. claims her testimony was equivalent to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re LD