Dodd v. Hughes
Nevada Supreme Court
81 Nev. 43, 398 P.2d 540 (1965)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
Dodd (plaintiff) applied for a writ of habeas corpus to be released from a state hospital where he was confined following a long history of mental illness and violent criminal behavior. Dodd was clinically diagnosed as sociopathic but did not exhibit any psychotic reactions indicated by the American Psychiatric Association to be classified as psychotic. However, Dodd’s history of mental illness and incarceration was documented from as early as age eight, when Dodd was confined to a boys’ school for two years following run-ins with police. Dodd escaped from the school and while on the run assaulted an elderly man with a crowbar and set the man on fire. Dodd was then sent to a prison for hardcore youth criminals and from there was committed to the hospital from which he sought release. At Dodd’s habeas hearing, the hospital’s superintendent testified that Dodd was not clinically psychotic and therefore not “mentally ill” as the term was used by the state to authorize confinement. Another doctor testified that although Dodd was not psychotic, he could still be deemed mentally ill. Following the hearing, a district-court judge determined that Dodd was mentally ill within the meaning of the state-hospital law and ordered that Dodd be confined to a state prison through the state’s procedure for such confinement. The judge’s order was effectuated, and Dodd was confined to a state prison. Dodd appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.