Citation network
Addington Vs. Texas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 30, 1979
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. 418 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Addington v. TexasSearch
-
U.S. 418 (1979) Addington v. TexasSearch
-
decision. 557 S.W.2d 511. In so holding, the Supreme Court relied primarily upon its previous decision in State v. TurnerSearch
-
standard of proof to protect particularly important individual interests in various civil cases. See, e.g., Woodby v. INSSearch
-
Chaunt v. UnitedSearch
-
Schneiderman v. UnitedSearch
-
Tippett v. MarylandSearch
-
F.2d 1153, 1166 (CA4 1971) (Sobeloff, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. dismissed sub nom. Murel v. BaltimoreSearch
-
we must be mindful that the function of legal process is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions. See Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection. See, e.g., Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
in Winship, a civil commitment proceeding can in no sense be equated to a criminal prosecution. Cf. Woodby v. INSSearch
-
risk of error to the individual must be minimized even at the risk that some who are guilty might go free. Patterson v. NewSearch
-
ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual is both mentally ill and likely to be dangerous. See O'Connor v. DonaldsonSearch
-
Blocker v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 48-49, 288 F.2d 853, 860-861 (1961) (opinion concurring in result). See also Tippett v. MarylandSearch
-
Patterson v. NewSearch
-
In Woodby v. INSSearch
-
U. S. 276 (1966), dealing with deportation, and Schneiderman v. UnitedSearch
-
See Kulko v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 528 (1953). As in those cases, we continue to refer to the parties as appellant and appellee. See Kulko v. CaliforniaSearch
-
only for the purpose of providing care designed to treat the individual. As the Texas Supreme Court said in State v. TurnerSearch
-
Superintendent of Worcester State Hospital v. HagbergSearch
-
Proctor v. ButlerSearch
-
Lausche v. CommissionerSearch
-
Denton v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Hawks v. LazaroSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Addington v. TexasSearch
-
State v. TurnerSearch
-
Murel v. BaltimoreSearch
-
See Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
Cf. Woodby v. INSSearch
-
See O'Connor v. DonaldsonSearch
-
and Schneiderman v. UnitedSearch
-
Hawks v. LazaroSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial