Citation network
O'Connor Vs. Donaldson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 1975
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 563 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court O'Connor v. DonaldsonSearch
-
U.S. 563 (1975) O'Connor v. DonaldsonSearch
-
for respondent's continued confinement, and since neither court below had the benefit of this Court's decision in Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
or to alleviate or cure his illness. See Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
harmless mentally ill does not itself establish a constitutionally adequate purpose for the confinement. See Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
McNeil v. DirectorSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
was initially permissible, it could not constitutionally continue after that basis no longer existed. Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
of those capable of surviving safely in freedom, on their own or with the help of family or friends. See Shelton v. TuckerSearch
-
or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person's physical liberty. See, e.g., Cohen v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Coates v. CitySearch
-
Street v. NewSearch
-
cf. 413 U. S. S. Dept. of Agriculture v. MorenoSearch
-
Id. at 420 U. S. 322 . See also Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
of this question, an official has, of course, no duty to anticipate unforeseeable constitutional developments. Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to enable that court to consider, in light of Wood v. StricklandSearch
-
unacceptable to suggest that the courts are powerless to determine whether the asserted ground is present. See Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
of precedential effect, leaving this Court's opinion and judgment as the sole law of the case. See United States v. MunsingwearSearch
-
the reported cases are replete with evidence of the divergence of medical opinion in this vexing area. E.g., Greenwood v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 350 U. S. 366 , 350 U. S. 375 (1956). See also Drope v. MissouriSearch
-
for any reason, is a deprivation of liberty which the State cannot accomplish without due process of law. Specht v. PattersonSearch
-
in an appropriate proceeding. Equally important, confinement must cease when those reasons no longer exist. See McNeil v. DirectorSearch
-
with psychiatric treatment or released, and there was no such condition in respondent's order of commitment. Cf. Rouse v. CameronSearch
-
protect society from the dangers of significant antisocial acts or communicable disease. Cf. Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. ProbateSearch
-
Hawaii v. StandardSearch
-
Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251 , 405 U. S. 257 (1972). See also Mormon Church v. UnitedSearch
-
with the best interests of the affected class and that its members are unable to act for themselves. Cf. Mormon Church v. UnitedSearch
-
by different considerations, and the justifications for one may not be invoked to rationalize another. Cf. Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
Greenwood v. UnitedSearch
-
society, and will suffer real harm to themselves unless provided with care in a sheltered environment. See, e.g., Lake v. CameronSearch
-
very least, I am not able to say that a state legislature is powerless to make that kind of judgment. See Greenwood v. UnitedSearch
-
and accommodating the interests Page 422 U. S. 586 of the individual and society. See, e.g., Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
judges are not free to read their private notions of public policy or public health into the Constitution. Olsen v. NebraskaSearch
-
requires that it be invoked only for commission of a specific offense prohibited by legislative enactment. See Powell v. TexasSearch
-
when quarantine is imposed by the State to protect the public from a highly communicable disease. See Jacobson v. MassachusettsSearch
-
and this case does not involve the rights of a person in an initial competency or commitment proceeding. Cf. Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
Pearson v. ProbateSearch
-
bases for commitment justify differences in conditions of confinement is not involved in this litigation. Cf. Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
concluding, therefore, that respondent was denied rights secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Cf. Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court O'Connor v. DonaldsonSearch
-
See Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
See Shelton v. TuckerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial