Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/State v. Zabransky

State v. Zabransky

998 P.2d 805, 166 Or. App. 672, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 636
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedApril 19, 2000
DocketMC 97-21; CA A99281
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 998 P.2d 805 (State v. Zabransky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Zabransky, 998 P.2d 805, 166 Or. App. 672, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 636 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinions

[673]*673PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order finding him to be mentally ill and committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period of 180 days. Appellant’s only argument that warrants discussion is that the trial court’s advice under ORS 426.100(1) was inadequate. That argument is identical in substance to the one that we considered and rejected in State v. Buffum, 166 Or App 552, 999 P2d 541 (2000)

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Cach
19 P.3d 992 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2001)
State v. Burge
1 P.3d 490 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2000)
State v. Buffum
999 P.2d 541 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2000)
State v. Zabransky
998 P.2d 805 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
998 P.2d 805, 166 Or. App. 672, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-zabransky-orctapp-2000.