Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears challenge to involuntary commitment based on intermittent explosive disorder
Summary
Counsel for the appellant argued the district court misapplied the mental‑health regulation by treating mood effects as the condition itself; the state said expert testimony showed the disorder met the regulation and no less‑restrictive option would protect others. The panel reserved decision.
My name is Justice Walsh and today the panel consists to my right of Justice Hirschfang, to my left is Justice D'Angelo.
Attorney Susan Ennis told the three‑judge panel that the district court erred when it found the appellant subject to involuntary civil commitment. "To satisfy due process concerns, the court must strive to find the least burdensome or oppressive controls over the individual that fulfill the purposes of the mental health statute," Ennis said, arguing the experts described intermittent explosive disorder and autism spectrum disorder and that those diagnoses are conduct‑based rather than "a substantial…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
