Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's judgment that committed her as a mentally ill person for up to 180 days, citing ORS 426.130. She argues that the trial court improperly determined she was a danger to herself due to a mental disorder, as defined in ORS 426.005(l)(e). The state acknowledges that the evidence in the record is insufficient to justify the involuntary commitment. Agreeing with the state's concession, the court reverses the trial court's judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of Mental Disorder under ORS 426.005(l)(e)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant contended that the trial court incorrectly applied the statutory definition of a mental disorder, claiming she was not a danger to herself as required under ORS 426.005(l)(e).
Reasoning: She argues that the trial court improperly determined she was a danger to herself due to a mental disorder, as defined in ORS 426.005(l)(e).
Involuntary Commitment under ORS 426.130subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant challenged the trial court's decision to commit her as a mentally ill person, arguing the evidence was insufficient under the standard set by ORS 426.130.
Reasoning: The appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's judgment that committed her as a mentally ill person for up to 180 days, citing ORS 426.130.
Sufficiency of Evidence for Involuntary Commitmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court agreed with the state's concession that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify involuntary commitment, leading to the reversal of the trial court's decision.
Reasoning: The state acknowledges that the evidence in the record is insufficient to justify the involuntary commitment. Agreeing with the state's concession, the court reverses the trial court's judgment.