Search for: "Addington v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 55
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Dec 2023, 7:32 am
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK December 21, 2024 Genesis Technology v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 7:04 pm
In Addington v. [read post]
2 Apr 2022, 6:46 am
” Goldberg v. [read post]
12 Feb 2022, 2:00 am
Rev. 163 (2021): This article revisits the United States Supreme Court case, Addington v. [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 7:05 am
Addington v. [read post]
17 Sep 2021, 5:01 am
In a separate ongoing proceeding, Hernandez Lara v. [read post]
1 Jun 2021, 9:01 pm
If a person is a danger to himself, then he might be subject to civil commitment, under Addington v. [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 9:01 pm
Under Addington v. [read post]
8 Sep 2019, 9:43 am
A small handful of cases involving judicial review have ensured the CICB continued to achieve the goals stated in the Act in a reasonable manner. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 4:15 am
” United States v. [read post]
28 Jul 2018, 4:07 pm
As explicated in Addington v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
The case is Addington v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
The case is Addington v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
The case is Addington v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
The case is Addington v. [read post]
26 Oct 2014, 8:23 pm
Consideration of Hamdi v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 9:01 pm
In the 1979 case of Addington v. [read post]
21 Sep 2014, 1:22 pm
In Addington v Texas, the United States Supreme Court held that a civil commitment proceeding can in no sense be equated with a criminal proceeding. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 12:24 pm
In 1979, the United States Supreme Court in Addington v Texas held that constitutional due process required the government to prove two statutory preconditions by clear and convincing evidence before a court could commit an individual to a mental institution: (1) that the person sought to be committed is mentally ill; and (2) that such person requires hospitalization for his own welfare and protection of others. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 3:00 pm
It is the court’s view that it is significant that the Supreme Court in Addington recognized that states could choose to impose a higher standard of proof but that a higher standard was not constitutionally required. [read post]
