{
  "id": 8525564,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: RUBY BENNETT INGRAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Ingram",
  "decision_date": "1985-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 8421DC763",
  "first_page": "579",
  "last_page": "581",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. App. 579"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "249 S.E. 2d 864",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "865"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 N.C. App. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551199
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "228"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/39/0227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 225",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "decided under portion of statute since repealed"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565989,
        8565958,
        8566025,
        8566153,
        8566060,
        8566102
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "decided under portion of statute since repealed"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0458-02",
        "/nc/277/0458-01",
        "/nc/277/0458-03",
        "/nc/277/0458-06",
        "/nc/277/0458-04",
        "/nc/277/0458-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 S.E. 2d 209",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "213"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551963
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "497"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 S.E. 2d 780",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "781"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550166
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "268"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/46/0265-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 S.E. 2d 288",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "290"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 631",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11310574
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "634"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/22/0631-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 S.E. 2d 460",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1940,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "461",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Black's Law Dictionary (2d Ed.) at 46"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 N.C. 507",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621731
      ],
      "year": 1940,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "508",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Black's Law Dictionary (2d Ed.) at 46"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/218/0507-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 346,
    "char_count": 5739,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.792,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3406380063084759
    },
    "sha256": "de616eb680a627eea74e6939609ed332526f8b6218746081a981c3bff784136c",
    "simhash": "1:addb20cff4bf6b2c",
    "word_count": 919
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:43.207286+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Becton concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: RUBY BENNETT INGRAM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nRespondent contends the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition was not duly sworn. We agree.\nThe space for the certifying officer\u2019s signature on the form \u201cPetition for Involuntary Commitment\u201d is blank. G.S. 122-58.3(a) provides that a person with \u201cknowledge of a mentally ill . . . person who is dangerous to himself or others\u201d may \u201cexecute an affidavit to this effect\u201d which \u201cshall include the facts on which the affiant\u2019s opinion is based.\u201d An affidavit is \u201c \u2018[a] written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily, and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before a person having authority to administer such oath or affirmation.\u2019 \u201d Ogburn v. Sterchi Brothers Stores, Inc., 218 N.C. 507, 508, 11 S.E. 2d 460, 461 (1940) (quoting Black\u2019s Law Dictionary (2d Ed.) at 46). Documents which are not under oath may not be considered as affidavits. Peace v. Broadcasting Corp., 22 N.C. App. 631, 634, 207 S.E. 2d 288, 290 (1974). The requirements of G.S. 122-58.3 must be followed diligently. In re Hernandez, 46 N.C. App. 265, 268, 264 S.E. 2d 780, 781 (1980). Because the statute \u201cprovides for a drastic remedy, it is encumbent upon all [who] use it to do so with care and exactness . . . .\u201d Samons v. Meymandi, 9 N.C. App. 490, 497, 177 S.E. 2d 209, 213 (1970), cert. denied, 277 N.C. 458, 178 S.E. 2d 225 (1971) (decided under portion of statute since repealed). Where an involuntary commitment statute requires an oath and the requirement is not complied with, the person involuntarily committed is deprived of liberty without legal process. Id.\nThe petition for involuntary commitment could not be treated as an affidavit because it was not confirmed by oath or affirmation before a duly authorized certifying officer. It thus did not comply with the requirements of G.S. 122-58.3(a) and could not serve as a basis for respondent\u2019s involuntary commitment. The order of commitment therefore must be vacated.\nRespondent further contends the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We again agree.\n\u201cThe statute clearly requires that the affidavit contain 'the facts on which the affiant\u2019s opinion is based.\u2019 \u201d In re Reed, 39 N.C. App. 227, 228, 249 S.E. 2d 864, 865 (1978). Mere conclusions of the affiant do not suffice. Id. The statement here that \u201c[respondent has strange behavior and irrational in her thinking\u201d is not a statement of fact but a pure conclusion of the affiant. It thus did not suffice to establish reasonable grounds for issuance of the commitment order. The remaining statements in the petition \u2014 \u201cLeaves home and no one knows of her whereabouts, and at times spends the night away from home. Accuses husband of improprieties.\u201d \u2014 do not establish facts showing or tending to show that respondent is mentally ill or dangerous to herself or others. The petition thus satisfied neither statutory nor due process requirements; even if it had met the statutory requirement for an affidavit, which it did not, it was insufficient to establish reasonable grounds for issuance of a commitment order. Reed, 39 N.C. App. 227, 249 S.E. 2d 864.\nOrder vacated.\nJudges Wells and Becton concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Augusta B. Turner, for petitioner appellee.",
      "Dawson & Mabe, by Kenneth Clayton Dawson, for respondent appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: RUBY BENNETT INGRAM\nNo. 8421DC763\n(Filed 7 May 1985)\n1. Insane Persons 8 1\u2014 involuntary commitment \u2014 petition not duly sworn\nA petition for involuntary commitment was insufficient where it was not confirmed by oath or affirmation before a duly authorized certifying officer as G.S. 122-58.3(a) requires.\n2. Insane Persons 8 1\u2014 involuntary commitment \u2014 insufficiency of petition\nA statement in a petition for involuntary commitment that respondent \u201chas strange behavior and irrational in her thinking\u201d was a pure conclusion which was insufficient to establish reasonable grounds for issuance of the commitment order. Further statements that respondent \u201c[l]eaves home and no one knows of her whereabouts, and at times spends the night away from home. Accuses husband of improprieties,\u201d did not establish facts tending to show that respondent is mentally ill or dangerous to herself or others and were also insufficient to establish reasonable grounds for issuance of a commitment order.\nAPPEAL by respondent from Alexander, Judge. Order entered 3 May 1984 in District Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 March 1985.\nRespondent\u2019s husband filed an unsworn petition for involuntary commitment alleging that respondent is \u201ca mentally ill . . . person who is dangerous to [herjself or others.\u201d The \u201cfacts\u201d on which the petition was based were stated as follows: \u201cRespondent has strange behavior and irrational in her thinking. Leaves home and no one knows of her whereabouts, and at times spends the night away from home. Accuses husband of improprieties.\u201d\nThe district court, after receiving evidence from petitioner and respondent, made findings that respondent \u201chas . . . acted in such manner as to evidence that [s]he would be unable without care, supervision, and the continued assistance of others to . . . satisfy [her] need for nourishment, personal or medical care, shelter, safety, and protection ... in that [she] wanders away from home, threatens violence to others[,] [d]oes not know her whereabouts.\u201d The court concluded that respondent is \u201cmentally ill and dangerous to [herjself or others\u201d and ordered her involuntarily committed to a mental health facility for a period not to exceed ninety days.\nFrom the order of commitment, respondent appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Augusta B. Turner, for petitioner appellee.\nDawson & Mabe, by Kenneth Clayton Dawson, for respondent appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0579-01",
  "first_page_order": 611,
  "last_page_order": 613
}
