finding pressing issue of public interest where courts were applying inconsistent standards of proof for the same curtailment of personal liberty through involuntary commitment
How later courts described this case
- finding pressing issue of public interest where courts were applying inconsistent standards of proof for the same curtailment of personal liberty through involuntary commitment
- recognizing stigmatization that accompanies involuntary civil commitment
- proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in determination of mental illness and potential dangerousness in civil commitment proceeding
- “Due process of law is not to be circumvented by use of the term civil as applied to proceedings which may have the same effect as criminal proceedings”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by In re Sanborn, 130 N.H. 430 (1988)
" Proctor v. Butler, 117 N.H. 927, 930-31, 380 A.2d 673 (1977) (quotation omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Sanborn, 130 N.H. 430, 545 A.2d 726 (1988).
The opinion
Grimes, J.,
concurs as well, having reviewed the briefs, record, and motion for rehearing. See Russell v. Dyer, 43 N.H. 396 (1861). December 21, 1977.